M. PUSHPARAJ Vs. K. KANTHIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.535 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1924 of 2004 on the file of the 13th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration, the defendant has filed the above appeal.

(2.) After trial, the trial Court found that the suit pro-note is not genuine and that the signature found in the suit pro-note is not that of the defendant and dismissed the suit.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that before the trial Court, the defendant took out an application in I.A.No.8174 of 2008 under Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act read with Order 26, Rule 10 - A of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to file a report from the Handwriting Expert with regard to the signature found in the suit pro-note. After contest, the trial Court dismissed the application finding that the defendant has not produced any document of contemporaneous period.