T PARASAKTHI Vs. K SIVASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent / plaintiff has laid the suit for recovery of money against the petitioner / defendant on the basis of a promissory note. The petitioner / defendant has taken a defence in the suit that he had not executed the suit promissory note as put forth by the respondent / plaintiff and thus, according to him, the suit promissory note is not a true document. While so, it is found the petitioner / defendant has preferred an application in I.A.No.187 of 2007 seeking for the comparison of the signature found in the disputed promissory note with his signature found in the income tax returns filed by him prior to the execution of the suit promissory note by an expert and inasmuch as the said application had not been seriously contested by the respondent / plaintiff, it is found that as prayed for by the petitioner / defendant, the Court below had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to submit the documents concerned for expert's opinion. While the matter pending thus, it is found that the respondent / plaintiff has preferred an application in I.A.No.43 of 2011 seeking for comparison of the disputed signature found in the suit promissory note with the signature of the petitioner / defendant found in the partition deed, dated 27.03.2006, executed amongst the family members of the petitioner / defendant and though the said application had not been accepted by the Court below, it is found that this Court, in C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1394 of 2011, had directed for comparison of the signature found in the disputed document with the above said partition deed as claimed by the respondent / plaintiff. Pursuant to the said order, it is found that steps have been taken by the Court below to send the original partition deed, dated 27.03.2006, by calling upon the petitioner / defendant to produce the original partition deed for accomplishing the task. However, it is found that the petitioner / defendant had informed the Court below that he is not in the custody of the said partition deed and therefore, he is unable to produce the same. Accordingly, the Court below had directed the respondent / plaintiff to produce the document containing the signatures of the petitioner / defendant for comparison by the expert and inasmuch as the respondent / plaintiff had not produced either the partition deed above mentioned or the other documents containing the signatures of the petitioner / defendant for the purpose of comparison, it is found that I.A.No.43 of 2011 has come to be closed by the Court below and the documents were sent for expert's scrutiny as per the order passed in I.A.No.187 of 2007.

(2.) When the matter is pending as such, as above discussed, it is found that the Court below had been informed by the Forensic Science Lab of Madurai Unit that on the preliminary examination of the documents submitted, some more admitted English signatures of the petitioner / defendant made in the ordinary course of business of some existing documents like letters, bank records, diary, vouchers, deeds etc., preferably made during 2000 - 2005 and also some specimen signatures of the petitioner / defendant (10 to 20 signatures) as found in the questioned document, be procured and forwarded to the Lab for the purpose of thorough document examination and opinion. It is, therefore, found that as per the above said letter received by the Forensic Science Lab, the Lab has not informed the Court below that they are unable to complete the examination of the disputed document with the income tax returns documents submitted already and on the other hand, they had only informed the Court below that some more documents would also be required for the purpose of thorough document examination and opinion.

(3.) Following the above said information received from the Lab, it appears that the Court below had directed the petitioner / defendant, whose specimen signatures are sought to be procured and forwarded to the Lab, to produce the said documents as called by the Lab concerned. It is found that the petitioner / defendant had filed a memo in the Court below informing that he is not in the custody of any such document as called for by the Lab and it is further found that a counter memo had been filed by the respondent / plaintiff praying the Court that inasmuch as the petitioner / defendant had not submitted the documents as required by the Lab, the Court should dismiss I.A.No.187 of 2007.