NARASIMHA RAO Vs. SOMESWAR JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by one Narasimha Rao, the second defendant in S. C. S. No. 3904 of 1949 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, to revise and set aside the judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes, so far as he is concerned, and also the judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes in N. T. A. No. 108 of 1953, so far as he is concerned.

(2.) THE facts are briefly these: One Some-swara Joshi sued the petitioner and his brother, Suryanaryana, the first defendant, to recover the amount due on a promissory note, Ex. P. 1, executed by them jointly in his favour, for Rs. 650 on 10-1-1949, and for costs. At first both the defendants were absent, and the suit was decreed 'ex parte' against them. Subsequently, the petitioner alone applied and got the ex parte decree set aside. Then he contended that he had not executed the suit promissory note, and that the signature in the suit promissory note purporting to be his was not really his, but was a forgery. The plaintiff was not a person acquainted with the signature of the second defendant, and so he could not give evidence regarding the genuineness of the signature purporting to be the second defendant's. Nor was any witness examined who had seen the second defendant affix the purported signature or had seen him Write letters, or was acquainted with his handwriting. Nor was any handwriting expert examined. The signatures of the petitioner in his vakaiat and in petitions and the signatures given by the petitioner in open court were compared by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes with the disputed signature in Ex. P. 1, and he came to the conclusion that the signature. purporting to be his in the promissory note, Ex. P. 1. was really his. He was reinforced in this conclusion by the petitioners falling to reply to the demand notice. He therefore passed a decree against both the defendants for the suit amount, and costs aggregating to Rs. 91-9-0. The petitioner took the matter up for a New Trial but the learned Judges dismissed the New trial application. Hence this civil revision petition.

(3.) THE first defendant, who was ex parte in the trial court, did not move any further in the matter; and the decree has become final against him.