Back
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
G. V. RAMI REDDY – Appellant
Versus
D. MOHAN RAJU – Respondent
Key Points: - (!) Point No.1: Existence of an organization (Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai) for determining ink/writing age. - (!) Point No.1: Reference to R. Jagadeesan Vs. N.Ayyasamy noting available forensic capability. - (!) Final decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed; trial Court to refer Ex.A-1 promissory note to Nutron Activation Analysis for age of signature at defendant’s expense. - (!) Point No.2: Mere age of ink/writing cannot by itself determine exact date of signature; consideration of ink manufacture versus usage timeline. - (!) The trial Court erred in rejecting referral; the required expertise is available. - (!) Jurisdiction and procedural posture: IA in O.S. No.253 of 2015; Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act. - (!) Parties and case facts: Defendant contends Ex.A-1 signed in 2008; plaintiff claims 2012; need age analysis. - (!) Polana Jawaharlal Nehru case discussed; earlier decisions distinguished. - (!) Miscellaneous petitions to be closed; costs none.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
The challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the order, dated 13.08.2018, in IA. No.874 of 2018 in O.S. No.253 of 2015, passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dismissing the Petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking to send Ex.A-1 promissory note to F.S.L. to ascertain the age of the signature and the contents therein.
2. The defendant filed the said Petition on the contention that he did not execute Ex.A-1 pronote on 20.12.2012 as claimed by the plaintiff, and on the other hand on a different occasion, he borrowed Rs. 1, 00, 000/- from "the plaintiff and plaintiff obtained his signature on a blank promissory note on 27.09.2008 and also obtained a cheque for security purpose and though the defendant discharged the said debt in March, 2009, the plaintiff returned the cheque but did not return the promissory note and he pressed into service the said blank promissory note and created Ex.A-1 with the date 20.12.2012 and filed the instant Suit. Thus, in essence, the defendant contends that Ex.A-1 was signed in the year 2008 but not in 2012 and for determination of
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
