G.S.Dhandapani vs S.Prabhakar
2021 Latest Caselaw 12566 Mad

                                                            1

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 28.06.2021

                                                         Coram

                                      The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

                                                 C.R.P.PD.No.320 of 2019
                                                           and
                                                  C.M.P.No.2327 of 2019


                     G.S.Dhandapani
                                                         ... Respondent / Plaintiff / Petitioner

                                                           Vs

                     S.Prabhakar
                                                         ... Petitioner / Defendant / Respondent



                               Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
                     of India to set aside the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge,
                     Pollachi, dated 01.12.2018 in I.A.No.1136 of 2018 in O.S.No.284 of
                     2013.
                                      For Petitioner            ..   Mr.J.Hariharan

                                      For Respondent            ..   Mr.R.Nandhakumar


                                                        ORDER

The plaintiff in O.S.No.284 of 2013 now pending on the file of the

learned Subordinate Court, Pollachi is the revision petitioner herein. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

2.The suit in O.S.No.284 of 2013 was filed for recovery of money

on the basis of alleged execution of a promissory note by the defendant

for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. The defendant did not pay the amount when it

was demanded and therefore, the plaintiff had necessity to institute the

suit. The defendant filed written statement. He admitted the signature in

the promissory note, but he did not admit the execution. The defense of

the defendant is that though the promissory note contained his signature,

but, at the time when he appended the signature, the promissory note was

a blank piece of paper. This is a circumstance which the defendant will

have to establish with conviction to enable the learned Judge to come to

any conclusion on the basis of such statement. He cannot draw help from

any other witness.

3.After trial had commenced and the plaintiff as PW-1 and

defendant as DW-1 were examined, the defendant filed I.A.No.1136 of

2018 to reopen the evidence on the ground that the scribe / witness to the

promissory note should also be examined. That application was allowed

and that order has made the plaintiff to come to this Court with this

Revision Petition.

4.The examination of such witness would not be of any material

help, since he can only to state that the signature found in the promissory https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

note is that of the defendant which fact the defendant himself admits. The

circumstances surrounding the execution of the promissory note will

have to be stated only by the executant to the promissory note and the

person for whose benefit the promissory note had been given. They are

the only parties who can properly speak about the execution of a

promissory note and surrounding circumstances. Neither of them can rely

on any third party though he may be a witness or scribe to speak about

the surrounding circumstances.

5.I am informed that the suit is at the stage of arguments and at this

stage, the present application has been made. The suit is pending for the

past eight years. It would only be appropriate that the learned Judge

passes a judgment based on the nature of evidence already recorded.

6.I am also informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that

the defendant had tendered evidence claiming and accepting that he only

signed in a blank paper and that the promissory note was not filled at the

time of when he appended his signature in the said promissory note.

These circumstances are to be now determined and the learned Judge will

have to answer the issues framed in the suit based on the evidence

adduced by the plaintiff and the defendant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

7.It would only be appropriate that the parties permit such exercise

be undertaken by the the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, who has

the entire evidence on his file and any further evidence would not be

germane to the issues raised in the suit.

8.Therefore, the Revision Petition is allowed with a direction to

the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, to dispose of the suit itself after hearing

arguments on both the sides on or before 31.07.2021. Let none of the

observations made herein play upon the mind of the learned Sub Judge

while examining the evidence and deciding the issues framed in the suit.

9.With the above observation, the order under Revision is set aside

and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the

connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

28.06.2021

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No smv

To The Subordinate Court, Pollachi.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

smv

C.R.P.PD.No.320 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.2327 of 2019

28.06.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/