CHIDAMBARAM Vs. P T PONNUSWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred against the order of the learned District Munsif, Harur dated 28.2.1995 passed in I.A.No. 1542/1994 in O.S.No. 16/1992, dismissing the petition which was filed to summon an expert witness to compare the handwriting in the suit promissory note, namely, Ex. C.I. with the admitted signature of the defendant. The plaintiff/respondent instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,500.00 together with interest thereon, due on a promissory note. The defendant in his written statement has taken the stand that he has signed a blank promissory note for an earlier money transaction ten years back and stated that the plaintiff has filled up the blank promissory note and it is not in the handwriting of the defendant. In order to prove that Ex. CI, promissory note is not in the handwriting of the defendant, he filed I.A. No. 1542/1994 in O.S. No. 16/1992, to summon a handwriting expert to compare his handwriting with the handwriting in Ex. CI promissory note. The learned District Munsif, Harur dismissed the petition on the ground that the Court itself can compare the handwriting of the defendant with the handwriting in Ex.CI. In the instant case, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The defendant himself has admitted his signature in Ex.CI promissory note in his written statement but he has taken the stand the he gave a blank signed promissory note ten years back for earlier money transactions. In this connection, Sec. 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (Act 26 of 1881) reads as follows :