DHARMALINGAM Vs. SENTHILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order in I.A.No.262 of 2005 in O.S.No.1119 of 2002 declining to send the document to scientific examination for obtaining opinion of handwriting expert on the basis of promissory note dated 29.04.2001 for recovery of Rs.2,79,600/-. The case of Respondent/Plaintiff is that Petitioner/Defendant has borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- on suit promissory note and has not repaid the debt and hence the suit.

(2.) PETITIONER/Defendant filed written statement interalia contending that plaintiff has fabricated the suit promissory note in view of other dispute. Plaintiff and defendant are co-brothers and both of them were doing business in procuring grain and selling them and were doing Mandi business. Due to dispute and differences between the plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff is alleged to have created the suit promissory note and the defendant has denied his liability to pay the amount.

(3.) CHALLENGING the impugned order, learned counsel for Petitioner/Defendant has submitted that when defendant has denied signature in the suit promissory note, the Trial Court ought to have sent the suit promissory note to the laboratory for obtaining opinion of handwriting expert. The learned counsel would further submit that comparison of signature by the Court itself and opinion formed by the Court cannot be conclusive in determining the genuineness of the signature.