Madras High Court
P.Ganapathy vs S.Parameswaran on 16 July, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.07.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P.(PD) No.111 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.710 of 2020
P.Ganapathy
... Petitioner / Petitioner / Defendant
Vs
S.Parameswaran
... Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the order of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode
passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.111 of 2014 dated 15.10.2019.
For Petitioner .. Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel
For Respondent .. Mr.M.Guruprasad
ORDER
The defendant in O.S.No.111 of 2014 now pending on the file of
the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode, is the revision petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.S.No.111 of 2014 had been filed by the respondent herein for recovery
of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest and the suit had been
filed on the basis of a promissory note dated 20.01.2012 which the
respondent herein / plaintiff in the suit alleges has been executed by the
revision petitioner / defendant in the suit. A written statement has been
filed denying signature in the promissory note.
2.Let me not delve deeply enter into the various facts stated in the
written statement which are subject matters of evidence and trial.
3.Be that as it may, the revision petitioner appears to have been
knocking the doors of the Subordinate Court Erode, continuously seeking
examination of the signature on the said promissory note. Initially, he
filed I.A.No.724 of 2014 taking recourse to Rule 76 of Civil Rules of
Practice, to send for admitted signatures in the cheques during the period
2012 and 2013 which were available in Syndicate Bank, Erode, for
comparison of the same with the signature in the promissory note filed
along with the plaint. That application came to be rejected and dismissed
by an order dated 23.09.2015. Subsequently, the revision petitioner /
defendant filed I.A.No.1148 of 2015 and in that petition, he sought to
call for documents namely, a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
which documents were available with the State Bank of India, Erode
Branch. Stating that the earlier application had been dismissed and that
the defendant was indulging himself in a roving enquiry, the said
Application in I.A.No.1148 of 2015 was also dismissed. Not dismayed,
the revision petitioner herein / defendant then filed I.A.No.1 of 2019. The
said application was filed pleading in a round about manner for
practically the same relief. It was to forward the suit promissory note
dated 20.01.2012 to be compared with the signatures in the
Memorandum of Title Deeds dated 31.01.2011 by a scientific expert at
the Forensic Department Chennai. That application again came to be
dismissed by an order dated 15.10.2019.
4.The learned Sub Judge was of the opinion that the signature in
the promissory note cannot be compared with a colour xerox which alone
the petitioner produced as the Memorandum of Title Deeds. That
reasoning is correct. A signature in the original can be compared only
with another signature in original.
5.Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, learned counsel for the revision petitioner
stated that a Commissioner may be appointed to go over to the particular
branch of State Bank of India at Erode and collect the Memorandum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Title Deeds and then armed with the suit promissory note go over to the
Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai and place a request that the
signatures in both the documents be compared and an opinion be given.
6.Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff,
however expressed frustration that there seems to be no end in this
exercise being undertaken by the revision petitioner by filing application
after application and the suit which has been filed in the year 2014 has
been circulating around the very same status of finding out the
genuineness of a document and that a direction must be given to adduce
evidence and trial to be commenced.
7.However, on hearing both the learned counsels, I hold that it
would only be appropriate that a quietus is given with respect to the
troublesome issue of the signature found in the promissory note since
that would be weighing in the minds of not only the parties, but also on
the learned Sub Judge till the time of judgment is delivered. After all, this
exercise would only help the learned Sub Judge to come to a just
conclusion either that the promissory note had been genuinely executed
by the revision petitioner / defendant or there has been intervening
circumstances, which the learned Sub Judge can examine with respect to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the said document.
8.I would therefore interfere with the said order and rather give a
direction to the learned Principal Sub Judge, Erode, to appoint an
Advocate Commissioner, in the first instance to collect the original
promissory note dated 20.01.2012 from the Court records in O.S.No.111
of 2014 and thereafter, collect the original Memorandum of Deposit of
Title Deeds dated 31.01.2011 from State Bank of India, Erode Branch,
and thereafter, issue a warrant to the Advocate Commissioner to take
both the original documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory Chennai
and invite an opinion from the experts therein regarding the signatures.
The learned Judge may give necessary direction in that regard and also
nominate the Advocate Commissioner and also fix the remuneration paid
to him / her.
9.With the said observations, the order under revision is set aside.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
16.07.2021
smv
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
To:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
The Subordinate Court, Erode.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
C.R.P.(PD) No.111 of 2020
16.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
