D. RADHAKRISHNA Vs. VEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suits filed for recovery of money based on a promissory note, the defendant took up the contention that the signatures found on the promissory notes were not his signatures. The defendant also made an application for referring the documents for analysis of the signature by the forensic expert. The Trial Court has however rejected the said application. Hence, these writ petitions.

(2.) The Trial Court in the impugned order has observed that the signatures appearing in the vakalat and the signatures appearing in the written statement and the signatures appearing on the promissory notes were totally different. It is however observed that it could not come to the conclusion that the signatures differed only by way of a comparison.

(3.) In my view, when the Trial Court noticed that the admitted signatures and disputed signatures were totally different, it ought to have allowed the application in order to ascertain as to whether the defendant had actually signed the promissory notes.