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

1975 Supreme(Mad) 406

V.SETHURAMAN
Doraiswamy Gounder and another – Appellant
Versus
Parayammal – Respondent


Advocates:
S. Palaniswamy, for Petitioner.

ORDER:- This civil revision petition has been filed by the defendants in O. S. No. 2395 of 1972. The petitioners executed a promissory note in favour of the respondents. There is an endorsement in the promissory note on 10th March, 1971, showing payment of Rs. 10. This endorsement is impugned as not genuine and therefore the petitioners wanted the documents to be sent to a handwriting expert. The learned District Munsif relying on the decision in Ramaswamy Konar v. Karuppa Konar1 dismissed the application.

2. Subsequently another application was filed for sending the promissory note to Government handwriting expert. This application was also dismissed on 16th February, 1974 on the ground that an earlier application had been dismissed and that the subsequent application was only a ruse to avoid trial. Hence this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioners submitted that the decision relied on by the learned District Munsif would only be applicable if the document is required to be sent to a private expert and if the document is to be examined by the Government handwriting expert, there could be no such bar. He placed before me the relevant decisions.

4. In N




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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top