Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1871
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
Seethalakshmi
Versus
M. Karunanidhi
C.R.P.PD. No. 3037 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided on: 04-06-2013
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:S. Saravanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K. Soundararajan, Advocate.
The main legal point established is the importance of expert evidence, adherence to higher court guidelines, and the relevance of forensic expert reports in thumb impression comparison cases.
Headnote:
Thumb Impression - Civil Revision Petition - C.R.P.PD.No.2541 of 2008, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court discussed the guidelines for sending documents for comparison, the importance of expert evidence in thumb impression comparison, and the relevance of forensic expert reports. The court emphasized that the trial court's decision should be based on available evidence and forensic expert reports, and dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's dismissal of an application regarding thumb impression comparison. The petitioner argued that the trial court did not follow the guidelines set by the higher court in a previous case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had obtained thumb impressions in the presence of both parties' advocates and sent them for expert examination. The expert's report was against the petitioner, leading the court to dismiss the petition.
Issues: The issues involved the proper procedure for obtaining and comparing thumb impressions, adherence to higher court guidelines, and the relevance of forensic expert reports.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of expert evidence in thumb impression comparison and highlighted that the trial court's decision should be based on available evidence and forensic expert reports.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision and emphasizing the need for the trial court to dispose of the main suit promptly.
1. The Petitioner/Plaintiff has focussed the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the Order dated 22.03.2010 in I.A.No.809 of 2009 in O.S.No.111 of 2006 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Kangeyam, Erode District.
2. The Learned District Munsif, while passing the impugned order in I.A.No.809 of 2009 in O.S.No.111 of 2006 dated 22.03.2010, has, categorically, among other things, observed that at the time of obtaining the thumb impression from the Respondent/Defendant in the presence of Court, the Petitioner and Respondent side Advocates were present and also that at the time of obtaining the Respondent/ Defendant's thumb impression by the Court, no objection has been raised/placed by the Petitioner's Advocate and also nearly 10 thumb impressions have been obtained from the Respondent/Defendant and the said 10 thumb impressions together with thumb impression of the suit pro-note have been sent for Expert's examination and the Expert has examined those impressions and has come to a conclusion that they are different ones and the two thumb impressions do not belong to a same person and to that effect has filed a Report etc. and consequently, dismissed the Application leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
3. Challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Learned District Munsif, Kangeyam in I.A.No.809 of 2009 in O.S.No.111 of 2006 dated 22.03.2010, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff submits that on earlier occasion, the Respondent/Defendant has filed C.R.P.PD.No.2541 of 2008 before this Court and this Court on 19.01.2009, in paragraph 5, has observed the following:
"5. At this juncture, I am of the opinion that even though the burden of proof is on the respondent/plaintiff to prove the case, the petitioner/ defendant, in order to buttress and fortify his stand, can ask for sending the impugned document for comparison. However, there are certain well settled guidelines to be followed. In this case, both the purported signature as well as the purported left thumb impression of the petitioner/defendant are found in the impugned pro-note and in such a case it is just and proper for the Court to send the impugned signature and the left thumb impression for comparison, so as to compare them with the anti litum motam signature of the petitioner/ defendant and also with the sample left thumb impression of the petitioner/ defendant concerned. Hence, at the first instance, the petitioner/defendant shall secure before the Court his own one or two anti motum litem signatures before the Court and also furnish his left thumb impression, whereupon, the lower Court shall appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the following purpose.
(a) To carry the relevant documents in connection with this case personally in a sealed cover;
(b) and produce the same before the Forensic Expert;
(c) leave it in his custody under his acknowledgment for as many days as the Forensic Expert may require;
(d) collect the record from the Forensic Expert on the day as may be fixed by him;
(e) bring it back and lodge it with the Court" and directed the Forensic Expert to complete the examination, in any event, within 48 hours after the depositing of the same by the Advocate Commissioner with him and disposed of the Civil Revision Petition accordingly.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff, while advancing his arguments, contends that the trial Court has sent only the thumb impression of Defendant for the purpose of Forensic Expert's Examination and it has not sent the Tamil signature of the Respondent/Defendant for comparison and in this regard, there has been a violation of the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.PD.No.2541 of 2008, committed by the trial Court.
5. Expatiating his submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff submits that in para 5 of the order dated 19.01.2009 in C.R.P.PD.No.2541 of 2008, this Court has clearly opined that '... In this case, both the purported signature as well as the
