The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of a signature comparison request on grounds of inconsistent statements in the defendant's prior admissions concerning the promissory note.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Karur, in I.A.No.944 of 2016 in O.S.No.367 of 2015.

2. According to the revision petitioner, the respondents, as plaintiffs, filed the above suit in O.S.No.367 of 2015 for recovery of money based on a suit promissory note (pro note) said to have been executed by the revision petitioner/defendant; during the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner/defendant filed an application in I.A.No.944 of 2016 for sending the said pro note for expert opinion by comparing the signature on the pro note with the admitted signature of the revision petitioner/defendant, and the trial court, however, dismissed the said application, against which the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would submit that even in the written statement filed by the revision petitioner/defendant, it has been categorically mentioned that the signature of the revision petitioner has been forged, and therefore, it is necessary to compare the signature found in the alleged pro note with that of her admitted signature to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that the trial court, however, without considering the above facts, erroneously dismissed the said application, which calls for interference by this Court. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in K. Palanisamy v. Eswaramurthy , dated 29.07.2021 passed in C.R.P. (PD) No. 756 of 2017.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the suit was filed in the year 2015, the revision petitioner/defendant appeared through her counsel on 07.10.2015 and filed her written statement in the year 2016, the chief- examination of P.W.1 was completed on 03.06.2016, and the case was posted from 16.06.2016 to 14.07.2016 for cross-examination of P.W.1; that thereafter, the revision petitioner/defendant filed the above application for sending the pro note for expert opinion; that the intention of the revision petitioner/defendant is only to drag on the suit proceedings; that even in the written statement, the revision petitioner/defendant has stated that her signature was obtained on the blank pro note by the respondents/plaintiffs as security; that, while so, the present application to compare the signature is contrary to the averments made in the written statement; and that, therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the said application, which calls for no interference by this Court.

5. Heard on both sides. Records perused.

6. Admittedly, the above suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for the recovery of money against the revision petitioner/defendant. The said application in I.A.No.944 of 2016 was filed by the revision petitioner/defendant before the trial court for sending the disputed signature for comparison, which was dismissed by the trial court. The suit was filed in the year 2015. After the completion of the chief-examination of P.W.1, the case was posted for cross-examination on several hearing dates.

7. On perusal of the written statement filed by the revision petitioner/defendant, it is seen that in the said written statement, it has been stated that the revision petitioner/defendant has not borrowed any money from the respondents/plaintiffs; that she is living separately from her husband due to matrimonial discord; and that the signature of the revision petitioner/defendant has been forged by the respondents/plaintiffs at the instance of her hu