B NAGARAJAPPA Vs. BORAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10 of 2007 and the grievance of the plaintiff is that the First Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal preferred by the defendant set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the case for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the remand order, this appeal is preferred.

(2.) Sri B.L. Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was filed by the appellant basing on an 'on demand promissory note' executed by the defendants' father (late Jogaiah) on 18-1-2004 and the said document was executed in connection with Jogaiah having received a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family necessity. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and accepted Exhibit P. 1, the 'on demand promissory note'. Whereas, the Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the defendants set aside the Trial Court's judgment and remanded the matter to the Trial Court, as the First Appellate Court found that the signature on Exhibit P. 1 having been disputed by the defendants, the Trial Court ought to have referred the said document to an expert for his opinion and the Trial Court should not have taken itself the role of an expert. This reasoning of the First Appellate Court is erroneous and therefore the remand of the matter to the Trial Court was uncalled for.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri R.V. Jayaprakash, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants relying on the Apex Court's decisions in State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, 1979 AIR(SC) 14and O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran and Anr., 1996 AIR(SC) 1140 contended that it was for the handwriting expert to give an opinion and the Court though is not barred from comparing the signatures, yet, as a matter of caution the Court ought to have sought the expert's opinion in regard to the disputed signatures. Therefore, relying on the aforesaid decisions, the submission made by the learned Counsel is that the order of remand passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and even the First Appellate Court has observed that the signatures on Exhibit P. 1 and the admitted signatures do not tally with each other. Moreover, the Trial Court has accepted the signature on Exhibit P. 1 as that of Jogaiah and the Trial Court has gone on to compare very minutely the admitted signature as well as the disputed one and in the course of its order at paragraph 12, the Trial Court has made the following observations: