A RATHINAM Vs. K SELLAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 07.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode in I.A.No,2517 of 2004 in O.S.No,742 of 2004. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner, non one represented. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE nutshell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: THE respondent/plaintiff herein filed the suit O.S.No,742 of 2004 for recovery of money from the defendant based on promissory notes. THE defendant filed the written statement whereupon the trial commenced and the plaintiff also adduced evidence. While so, the defendant/revision petitioner did choose to file I.A.No,2517 of 2004 praying the Court to send the suit pro-note to the handwriting expert for comparing the same with the purported signature of the defendant as found in the court summons. After hearing both sides, the lower court dismissed the said I.A. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision petition has been filed on various grounds inter alia thus: THE lower Court without applying the law properly simply rejected the prayer for taking the handwriting expert's assistance for comparing the disputed signature in the pro note with that of the admitted signature of the defendant in the suit summons.

(3.) HERE the peculiar feature involved is that the defendant himself sought for taking the assistance of expert but without furnishing his authentic ante litem motam signatures so as to enable the court to send such signatures of the defendant along with the disputed signature to the expert for comparison purpose. On the other hand, surprisingly and shockingly, the defendant sought the help of the Court to send the signature of the defendant on the suit summons for being compared with the disputed signature in the suit promissory note. The lower Court correctly observed that in the postal acknowledgement card received by the Court, the defendant signed in English, whereas in the Court summons, he signed it in Tamil. As such, the Court adumbrated and highlighted as to how the defendant himself is having at present no specific standard or pattern of signature of his own. In the grounds of revision, the revision petitioner/plaintiff cited the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 1140. Absolutely, there is no quarrel over the proposition as found enunciated in the said decision, which is to the effect that the Court should be liberal in giving opportunity to the party to take the assistance of an expert instead of Court itself assuming the role of an expert under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. But here, my discussion supra would clearly indicate and demonstrate that the facts involved are different.