PAILY ALIAS KUNJU Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for realisation of money due under a promissory note is the petitioner. The defendant conceded his signature found on the promissory note. His contention is that he had given blank signed papers to one Dharmadeepam Kuries Pvt. Ltd. Angamaly. It is his further case that the said blank paper was misused by the plaintiff to let the suit of the nature.

(2.) The defendant filed an application to forward the promissory note to a handwriting expert. The defendant contended that the age of the blank paper and the age of the writings therein should be noted by the expert. The Court below has held that these are matters for evidence in the suit. The Court below has also opined that the age of the writings would depend upon the age of the ink used for the same.

(3.) The report of an expert is after all an opinion evidence under S.45 of the Evidence Act. The circumstances under which the signed blank paper was given to the Kuri company can be established by the defendant in the suit. The question as to whether the plaintiff has misused that signed blank paper has to be considered by the Court below. The report of the handwriting expert on this issue may not be accurate and helpful to decide the cardinal issues in the suit. The dictum laid down in Gopal S. v. D. Balachandran, 2008 (2) KHC 205 (Mad.) : 2008 (1) KLD 517 : 2008 (1) CRIMES 704 also subscribes to the same view. I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned.