DORAISWAMY GOUNDER Vs. PARAVAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed by the defendants in O.S. 2393 of 1972. The petitioners executed a promissory note in favour of the respondents. There is an endorsement in the promissory note on 10 -3 -1971, showing payment of Rs. 10/ -. This endorsement is impugned as not genuine and therefore the petitioners wanted the document to be sent to a handwriting expert. The learned District Munsif relying on the decision in Ramaswami Konar v. Karuppa Konar, (1971) 84 Mad LW 348 dismissed the application.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY another application was filed for sending the promissory note to Government handwriting expert. This application was also dismissed on 16 -2 -1974, on the ground that an earlier application had been dismissed and that the subsequent application was only a ruse to avoid trial. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) IN Narasimha v. Narayana Chettiar, 1968 -2 Mad LJ 48, Ramamurti, J. condemned the practice of sending the original documents in the custody of the Court to handwriting experts as being highly objectionable. It was pointed out by him that under no circumstances should a Court permit or allow the documents to go out of its custody, as such an evil practice is attendant with various risks, and that the proper procedure in such cases would be only to permit the handwriting expert to inspect the documents in the Court premises itself in the presence of some responsible officers of the Court and also if necessary to permit the expert to have photographic copies of the documents in the presence of the responsible officer of the Court. Any lapse in taking necessary safeguards in this direction may, in his view, result in miscarriage of justice, besides creating complications. The learned Judge has also deprecated the practice of making belated and repeated applications for examination of documents by handwriting experts in order to protract and delay the trial.