V P SANKARAN Vs. R UTHIRAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the defendant in O. S. No. 125 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of rs. 98,600/- from this petitioner on the strength of a promissory note executed by him on 10. 07. 2005. This petitioner filed the written statement, contending inter alia, that as he stood as guarantor for his friend by name Rangasamy, who borrowed a sum of rs. 5,000/- from the Finance Company run by the plaintiff and this petitioner put his signature and his left thumb impression on a blank pro-note, in which, only numericals of Rs. 5,000/- written at the top, and that the said Rangasamy discharged the loan. However, the plaintiff did not return the above said blank pro-note to the defendant and that the said document has been forged and fabricated, with material alteration as if, the defendant owes Rs. 85,000/- to the plaintiff.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the petition under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and section 151 CPC, praying the Court to refer the suit pro-note to handwriting expert to compare the difference available in the thickness, clarity of ink used to place 8 in front of Rs. 5,000/- and writing of the amount in words with the other words used to fill up the pro-note relating to the address of parties and to give his opinion. In the affidavit, he has stated that originally, numericals "rs. 5,000/-" alone was entered in the pro-note, but the suit pro-note shows as if, it is for Rs. 85,000/- and words in Tamil as "rs. 85,000/-" have been written subsequently and hence, age, thickness and clarity of the ink have to be compared by the handwriting expert.

(3.) THE above said petition resisted by the respondent by filing counter affidavit, stating that it is false to state that the alteration has been affected in the suit pro-note from numericals 8 to 85; that the petitioner is belated one; and that only in order to drag on the proceedings, the petitioner has been filed.