LEKSHMI AMMA Vs. KARUNAKARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against one of the orders of remand made by the Subordinate Judge of Kasargode. A long judgment culminating in a remand order, an almost complete discussion ultimately failing to reach a decision, are features of this judgment which initially caused me surprise. I should have hesitated to confirm this order but for the fact that after hearing counsel on both sides, they are also inclined to have a fresh trial but with more specific directions as to what should take place then and I am satisfied that the joint request is not unjust.

(2.) Now to the facts. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, brought a suit on a promissory note. Ext. A1, alleged to have been executed by the defendant but denied by him in his written statement. The note contains a thumb impression and signature, the identity of which has to be proved before a decree can be granted to the plaintiff. In the course of the litigation, the opinion of more than one expert was sought. Out of the three specialists to whom the questioned document was submitted for examination, only one Shri. H. L. Badhwar, Examiner of Questioned Documents, Indore (referred to by the Subordinate Judge as Indore Expert) gave the opinion that the promissory note was in the handwriting of the defendant and that it contained his signatures and thumb impression. Following upon this report dated 15-1-1967 he was examined on commission on 21-9-1967 as per order in R. I. A. No. 718 of 1967. The plaintiff submitted a set of interrogations. The defendant did not file any cross interrogatories although some opportunity was afforded, it is stated in the judgment. The questions suggested by the plaintiff were forwarded and the evidence of the expert recorded on commission (vide Ex C2). On 27-11-1967 the defendant applied in R. I. A. No. 1463 of 1967 for sending the promissory note to another expert for purpose of comparison of the thumb impression and signature in the impugned document with the admitted thumb impression and signature of the defendant. Messrs. Bawa & Associates, Document Examiners of Bombay were directed by the court to compare the thumb impressions. Somehow, there was nothing mentioned in the forwarding letter of the court regarding the comparison of the signatures. May be, this was an omission, but it has become rather significant in the light of what took place later; for, Bawa and Associates reported that 'unfortunately in the present case of the disputed thumb impressions, which is very unusual, they said both the thumb impressions in dispute are not only partial but also blurred, and that besides, all the research work done by him, not even a solid ridge characteristic is visible which could be positively compared with the specimen thumb impressions." (Poor English!) In short, the expert came to the unhelpful conclusion that the disputed thumb impression had become too indistinct to be deciphered with precision. He pointed out, however, that the only alternative left to him was to compare the complete signatures written on the revenue stamps provided admitted signatures were furnished. But oddly enough the court had failed to direct comparison of the signatures or to forward admitted signatures and so Messrs Bawa & Associates could not express any opinion on the signature in the promissory note. It is also noteworthy that much earlier, i. e. on 19-11-1965, the plaintiff had applied as per R. I. A. 1952 of 1965 to forward the thumb impression and signature in Ex. P1 to an expert. Accordingly, they were forwarded to the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Medical College Buildings, Trivandrum, who returned them for certain technical reasons. Therefore, on 12-8-1966, the finger prints were sent to the Director, Finger Print Bureau, for comparison. He gave the opinion that the thumb impressions were far too indistinct to yield a sufficient number of ridge peculiarities to enable him to perform the comparison. It was after this failure that the 'Indore Expert' was approached.

(3.) The Trial Court accepted the evidence of the Indore Expert, felt reassured about the conclusion by its own comparison of the signatures and thumb impressions and was prepared to act upon the direct testimony of P. W. 1 which lent strength to the genuineness of the promissory note. It may also be noticed that on 5-11-1968 the defendant had moved the court by R. I. A. Nos. 1985 and 1986 of 1958 to examine Bawa & Associates, Bombay as well as the finger print expert, Trivandrum, on commission. They were rejected by the Trial Court as being belated. In this background, the learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal, observed.