9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiff or to his order on demand, that despite the repeated requests, the defendant has failed to pay any amount towards principal or interest and that therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for recovery of Rs.38,10,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till payment and for costs. 4. The defence of the defendant is that the defendant has neither borrowed any amount nor executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff with the help of his close friends had created the promissory note and filed the suit, that the defendant's signature has been forged and the thumb impression found in the promissory note is not that of the defendant, that the plaintiff has no capacity to advance the loan amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-, that the plaintiff's brother's wife Kanna, who is running a Textile Shop in the building owned by the defendant has filed a suit against the defendant for permanent injunction and that the said Kanna had setup the plaintiff to file the above suit with evil intention and to cause hardship to the defendant. 5. Pending suit, the plaintiff has filed a petition in I.A.No.125 of 2019 under Order 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Commissioner to take the suit promissory note to the Forensic Science Department, Madurai, to find out age of the writings, such as the names of the plaintiff and defendant, amount, interest and the signature found therein and to get an expert report. 10. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff has managed to get an unfilled promissory note signed by the defendant and filled up the contents within one year before the suit, that the signature found in the promissory note was subscribed long back, that the defendant has not subscribed his signature in the promissory note on 04.10.2016 and that therefore it has become just and necessary to send the promissory note to Forensic Science Department to find out the age of the ink, used for writing the contents and the signature. 11. The learned Additional District Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 05.01.2021, allowing the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has come forward with the present revision. 12. The main contention of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that this Court had been repeatedly held that age of the ink in the disputed document and the probable time at which a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure in the cheque in question and he only contends that the ink by which the dates and amount filled therein differs. In other words, the petitioner seeks to ascertain the age of the ink by which the dates and amounts were filled in the cheque which cannot be done in view of the decision of this Court reported in (R. Jagadeesan Vs. N. Ayyasamy) (2010 (1) CTC 424). In that decision, this Court held that there is no such facility available in India, especially in Tamil Nadu to compare the age of the ink. In Para Nos.7, 8 and 9 it was held as follows:- 7. In order to ascertain the correctness of the said statement, this Court had requested the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. N.R. Elango to request either the Director or the Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Chennai, to be present before this Court to explain the position. Accordingly, today, Mr. A.R. Mohan, Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai is kind enough to be present before this Court. According to him, he is the Head of the Document Division of the department. On a query made by this Court regarding the above position, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, this Court held as follows: '5. In the light of the above decision, the Court below is right in rejecting the plea of the petitioner to send the disputed cheque in question for ascertaining the age of the ink or the variation in the ink in the subject matter of the cheque. 6. The Court below also found that if the cheque in question was issued long back, as contended by the petitioner/accused, the same can be proved by way of bank records and therefore also the comparison of the admitted signature and the alleged disputed signature are unnecessary. Such a reasoning assigned by the court below is valid and justified. Further, the petitioner has filed the instant application only after three years from the date of institution of the case by the respondent. In any view of the matter, in the light of the decision of this Court, mentioned supra, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. Consequently, Connected M.P. No. 1 of 2011 is closed.' 7) Though after ascertaining as to whether, there is any expert available in this country, and in particular, Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Hyderabad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
