S.PALANIVELU
Elumalai – Appellant
Versus
Subbaramani – Respondent
The petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.220 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Thirukoilur. The respondent has filed the suit on a pro-note against this petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest and costs. The suit was taken for trial and when it is in part-heard stage, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC praying the Court to send the suit pro-note to the expert to ascertain the difference between the inks which were utilised for signing his signatures in the suit pro-note and other signatures contained in the printed form which is a filled up pro-note.
2. In the affidavit, he has alleged that while P.W3, one Rajavel was examined in cross, he has admitted that inks used for signatures of the defendant and one Gopal are similar and the ink used for signatures of others have difference. However, in the re-examination, he has stated that Kali and Elumalai signed, exerting pressure and the difference occurred due to this. Hence, the suit pro-note has to be sent for ascertaining whether there are differences between the inks used for signatures in the suit pro-note and other printed form.
3. In the
1. (2008) 5 SCC 633 T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Mudaliar
2. (2007) 2 SCC 258 = (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 577 Kalyani Baskar v M.S.Sampoornam
4. 2009 Indlaw Mad 1077 = AIR 2009 Mad.166 V.P. Sankaran v
5. AIR 1994 AP 90 Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai v J.Venkateswara Rao
6. AIR 1964 SC 529 Shashi Kumar Banerjee v Subodh Kumar Banerjee
7. 2010 (1) CTC 424 R. Jagadeesan v N. Ayyasamy & another
10. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.