ELUMALAI Vs. SUBBARAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is Defendant in O.S. No. 220 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Thirukoilur. The Respondent has filed the suit on a pro-note against this Petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith interest and costs. The suit was taken for trial and when it is in part-heard stage, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of Code of Code of Civil Procedure praying the Court to send the suit pro-note to the expert to ascertain the difference between the inks which were utilised for signing his signatures in the suit pro-note and other signatures contained in the printed form which is a filled up pro-note.

(2.) In the affidavit, he has alleged that while P.W3, one Rajavel was examined in cross, he has admitted that inks used for signatures of the Defendant and one Gopal are similar and the ink used for signatures of others have difference. However, in the re-examination, he has stated that Kali and Elumalai signed, exerting pressure and the difference occurred due to this. Hence, the suit pro-note has to be sent for ascertaining whether there are differences between the inks used for signatures in the suit pro-note and other printed form.

(3.) In the counter filed by the Respondent, it is stated that the petition is not maintainable and that by means of document examination, the period of writing could not be accurately ascertained. The Petitioner has not produced any registered documents of contemporaneous period to that of the suit pro-note for comparison of ink. The petition has been filed to procrastinate the proceedings. On 30.06.2008, the suit was filed. The Plaintiff's witnesses were examined and the case was posted for Defendant's witness on 18.06.2009. There is no explanation in the affidavit, for what reason this petition has been filed one year after the date of filing of the suit. The opinion of the handwriting expert is not conclusive. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.