TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote. Demand was made under Ex.A.2, to settle the transaction, for which the defendant sent a reply denying the execution and the borrowing. The suit was, therefore, necessitated. 4. In the written statement filed by the defendant, respondent herein, he denied the execution and stated that as between himself and plaintiff, there had been earlier transactions in dealing with paddy, and plaintiff has forged his signature from the accounts and has fabricated the promissory note. 5. The trial Court examined P.W.1 (plaintiff) and also one of the attestors to Ex.A.1 as P.W.2. Defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and another witness as (scribe of Ex.A1) as D.W.2 P.Ws. 1 to 3 were marked on the side of plaintiff, and Exx.D-1 and D-2 were marked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be dismissed. 9. After hearing learned Counsel for both parties, I feel that the procedure adopted by the Court below is not proper. As rightly contended by Learned Counsel for petitioner, the main reason for dismissing the suit is based on a comparison of the signature. It is settled law that the Court cannot act as an expert. In a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran and another, AIR1996SC1140 . Their Lordships followed an earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in State Delhi Admn. v. Pali Ram, 1979CriLJ17 and held as follows in paragraph 18. Relevant portion reads thus: Though it is the province of the expert to act as judge or jury after a scientific comparison of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (Section 73 of Evidence Act) specifically empowers the court to compare the disputed writings with the specimen/admitted writings shown to be genuine, prudence demands that the court should be extremely slow in venturing an opinion on the basis of mere comparison, more so, when the quality of evidence in respect of specimen/admitted writings is not of high standard. . . 11. Raju, J., as he then was, has also taken a similar view in the decision reported in Dhanakodi Padayachi v. Muthukumaraswami, 1997 (II) M.L.J. 37. 12. The Court below has concluded its judgment in para. 16 thus: Tamil Matter 13. It is clear therefrom that the main reason for dismissing the suit is comparison of the signatures. Even though the Court may h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he plaintiff from producing the accounts and file the suit on that basis. The evidence of D.W.2 also should not have been relied on. If we are to act on the evidence of D.W.2, the Court will have to take him as a party to the fraud. There is no necessity for a document writer to write a promissory note, especially when Ex.A.1 is in a printed form, and, except the amount and signature, all other details are printed. The lower Court has found fault with the evidence of P.W.1 on the ground that some portions of Ex.A.1 seem to have been obliterated. It assumed that the plaintiff wanted to give a colour of genuineness for the same. I do not find any justification in coming to that conclusion when the defendant himself has no such case. 15. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
