H G VENKATESHMURTHY Vs. RAVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Hassan in R.A. No. 65/2007. Appellant-Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on the pronote executed by the respondent-defendant as per Ex. P1. The matter was contested denying the execution of pronote. Ultimately, the trial Court on comparing the signature on the written statement and also other documents, has formed an opinion that the document at Ex. P1 has not been executed by the defendant and accordingly, has dismissed the suit, as against which in the appeal filed before the Principal District Judge, Hassan in R.A. No. 65/2007, an application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking for opinion of the expert on the admitted documents at Exs. D1 and D2 produced by the defendant himself with that of the disputed signature on Ex. P1. However, the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal while confirming the order of the trial Court. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) Heard.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff sought to refer Exs. D1 and D2, the admitted signature of the defendant, with that of the disputed signature on Ex. P1, instead, the lower appellate Court has referred the signature on the written statement with that of Ex. P1 without considering the request of the appellant to send the admitted documents at Exs. D1 and D2, which were executed at an undisputed point of time, to compare with Ex. P1.