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

1997 Supreme(Mad) 991

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
Irulappan – Appellant
Versus
Meenakshisundaram – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. S. Subbiah, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. Sivaji, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 22. 1997 passed in

I.A. No. 190 of 1997 in O.S. No. 254 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for sending the suit document for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert.

2. The facts leading to filing of this petition are as follows:-The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 254 of 1994 before the lower court for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,66,800 on a promissory note dated 17. 1991 executed by the petitioner. Though the defendant, the petitioner admitted that the signature in the promissory note was put by him, his case was that it was put on a blank promissory note given by him in the year 1986 and as such, he has never executed any promissory note dated 17. 1991. In order to establish his case that the signature in the suit promissory note was put in the year 1986 and other writings in the promissory note were not made in 1986, the petitioner/defendant filed an application in I.A. No. 190 of 1997 for sending the suit promissory note for the opinion of the Handwriting Ex






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