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

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
JOHNSI – Appellant
Versus
KUMAR – Respondent


ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the Fair and Decretal order, dated 03.02.2016 passed in I.A.No.67 of 2016 in O.S.No.131 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor.

2.The petitioner is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed suit in O.S.No.131 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Valliyoor, for recovery of money based on Ex.A1. The petitioner denied the signature in Ex.A1. The respondent filed I.A.No.67 of 2016 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for obtaining opinion from the handwriting expert by comparing the signature in Ex.A1 with admitted signature in summons, written statement and deposition. The petitioner opposed the said application on the ground that those documents are not contemporaneous documents. The contemporaneous document of Ex.A1 only can be sent for comparison. The signature in Ex.A6 is only a Xerox copy and signature in the Xerox copy cannot be compared for obtaining expert opinion.

3.The learned Judge considering the averments made in the affidavit and counter affidavit and perusing the materials on record, allowed the application relying on the judgment reported in 2008(4) L.W. 687 (

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