R. GANGADHARA Vs. SHRI RAMAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REJECTION of petitioner's I.A. No. 4 under Order 26, Rule 10 -A C.P.C. by order dated 15.6.2013 in O.S. No. 134/2012, of the 1st Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, has resulted in this petition by the defendant. Respondent instituted the suit for recovery of money, which was opposed, by filing written statement of the petitioner, arraigned as defendant, alleging that during the year 1996 his father -in -law by name N. Krishne Gowda obtained a loan from the plaintiff while petitioner affixed his signature to a blank pro -note as a security for due repayment of the loan. In other words, admitted the execution of the document but alleged that it was meant to be as a security for the loan advanced to his father -in -law.

(2.) THE trial Court framed issues, parties entered trial, recorded the testimony of their respective witnesses and marked documents. On conclusion of the trial, petitioner filed I.A. No. 4 under Order 26, Rule 10A C.P.C. to direct a scientific investigation/chemical examination and comparison of the ink to ascertain whether signatures of the petitioner Ex. P -1(a) and Ex. P -2(a) are affixed on 15.8.2010 as alleged in the pro -note and consideration receipt and the other writings there on i.e., the signatures of witnesses and scribe Ex. P -1(b) and (c) were of the same date, since there is dispute over relative age of the writings, by appointing the Chief Executive, All India Forgery Detection Forensic Finger Prints Bureau, Agra and to submit an opinion. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it was stated that the plaintiff created a concocted suit promissory note which was in fact was blank an execution meant as security for the loan borrowed by the deponent's father -in -law by name N. Krishne Gowda since deceased during the year 1996, misused by filling up particulars at the time of filing the suit. It is in the backdrop of the said facts the deponent stated that there was need for scientific investigation and chemical examination.

(3.) THE application was opposed by filing statement of objections of the plaintiff inter alia denying the allegations and that the evidence of the expert will not assist the defendant in the manner in which it is sought for.