SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(AP) 1212

Andhra Pradesh High Court
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J.
Pamu Padmavathi
Vs.
Perati Yakub Reddy
CRP No.4237 of 2007
Decided on : 4-12-2007

Advocates:
Advocate appeared.
Counsel appeared :Mamidi Venu Madbav, Counsel for the Petitioner.

Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1872-Section 73 and 45-Comparison of signatures on suit document- Expert opinion is not required, unless Court is unable to come to just conclusion on such comparison. It is always open to court itself to compare signature on pronote with admitted signature of defendant to find out its genuineness. Petition dismissed. [Para 5]

ORDER :- This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.7.2007 made in I.A. No.4 of 2005 in O.S. No.67 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, whereby, the trial Court refused to send the suit promissory note dated 5.12.2000 to an expert for comparing the signature on the promissory note with the admitted signature of the defendant, who is the petitioner herein.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff instituted O.S. No.67 of 2001 for recovery of money the foot of the promissory note. At a stage when the trial was in progress, the defendant i.e., the petitioner herein, filed the present application stating that expert's opinion is required for comparison of his signature, and the trial Court, as stated above, dismissed the petition.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

4. In spite of the fact that the respondent-plaintiff was served with the notice, he has not put in his appearance either in person or through his advocate.

5. Evidently, it is an old suit of the year 2001 and the point involved in the suit is very simple. For comparison of any signature on the suit promissory note with the admitted signature, there is no necessity to send the suit document to the expert. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for comparison of signatures, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. Under the law, it is always open for the Court itself to compare the signature on the promissory note with the admitted signature of the defendant i.e. the petitioner herein to find out its genuineness. It is only when the Court is unable to come to a just conclusion on such comparison, then expert's opinion may be required. The admitted signature of the defendant is always available with the trial Court because at the time when the defendant engaged his Counsel, vakalat would be filed by the Counsel, wherein the defendant signs and the Court can always look into that signature and compare it with that of the suit pr9missory note. Hence, there is no need to refer the suit document to the expert's opinion.

6. Hence, I see no merits in this civil revision petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top