Valupillai vs Jayamaniammal

A. Ramamurhti, J.—This petition and CMP coming on for orders as to admission on Monday the twelfth day of February, 2001 on this day

upon perusing the petition, the orders of the tower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Mani, Advocate for

the petitioner in both the petitions and of Mr. K.S. Kumar, Advocate for the respondent in both the petitions and having stood over for

consideration till this day, the Court made the following order:

The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 333 of 1996 on the file of Additional District Munsif of Cheyyar has preferred the revision aggrieved

against the orders passed in I.A. No. 753 of 1999 dated 4.3.2000.

The case in brief is as follows :

The petitioner/defendant filed a petition u/s 151 of CPC to send the suit promissory note to the Hand Writing Expert for comparison of the

signature with the other admitted signatures and to send a report. The respondent/complainant filed a suit for recovery of certain amount due under

a promissory note. The petitioner/defendant had taken a stand that he is not in the habit of signing in Tamil and as such the signature in the

promissory note is a forged one. Unless the document is sent to the Hand Writing Expert, he would be put to much toss and hardship. The

respondent/plain tiff opposed the application and stated that there is no reason to send the documents, to the Hand Writing Expert. The petitioner

has deliberately signed in Tamil whereas in all other documents, he had signed in English. The petitioner has also not chosen to file any document

which contains his signature in Tamil and in the absence of any such document, no useful purpose would be served in sending the document to the

expert. Apart from that, the Court has got power to compare the same with any admitted signature if and when produced by the petitioner. The

applications has been filed only to protract the litigation. After hearing the parties, the learned District Munsif, dismissed the application and

aggrieved against this, the present revision has been filed.

Heard the learned Counsels of both sides.

The point that arises for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct.

Point.--It is admitted that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of certain amount due under a promissory note against the

petitioner/defendant. The defendant filed a written statement disputing the signature in the document. The suit filed in the year 1996 whereas the

present application to send for the impugned document for the purpose of comparison was filed in 1999. Learned Counsel for the revision petition

mainly contended that the plaintiff atone has to prove the signature and the defendant need not disprove his signature on the ground of delay atone,

the learned District Munsif has dismissed the application. The plaintiff was already examined-in-chief and only after the conclusion of her evidence,

the petitioner has filed the application for comparison of the disputed signature by an expert. By doing so. no prejudice would be served to the

respondent/plaintiff.

Learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the admitted signature of the defendant in Tamil has not been filed before the Court.

Only if and when the admitted signatures are filed, then atone the question of sending the impugned signature for comparison with the admitted

signature can be considered. The defendant had taken a categorical stand that he was always in the habit of signing in English and he never signed

in Tamil and this being the defence taken by the petitioner/defendant, no useful purposes would be served in sending the impugned document to the

Hand Writing Expert because he may not be able to compare the same with any of the admitted signatures its they are not available. I am of the

view that there Is some force In the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff,

Learned District Munsif dismissed the application on the other ground namely that there was inordinate delay in filing the petition by the

defendant. As adverted to the suit was filed in 1996 and it was taken up for trial in 1999 and after the conclusion of evidence of P.W. I the

petitioner has come forward with the application. However learned Counsel for the defendant relied on the decision reported in Kuppanna

Gounder and another Vs. R. Sivakami, for the proposition that rejection of application on the ground of delay is not justified and the approach of

the Court should be rendered to the substantial justice. There is no dispute about this principle but the applicability of the same depends upon the

facts and circumstances in each case. In the case referred to above, the application for appointment, of a Commissioner was filed to take the

disputed Will to the Government Hand Writing Expert for comparison with that of the admitted signature and expert''s opinion. The application

was filed in April, 1998 and on the ground of delay, that was dismissed. So far as this case is concerned, now the admitted signature of the

defendant has not been filed and apart from that, the defendant had taken a categorical stand that he never used to sign in Tamil and this being so,

the dismissal of the application by the Court below is proper and correct and no interference is called for.

For the reasons stated above, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. Consequently C.M.P. No. 9018 of 2000 is also dismissed.