Sec.45 of Evidence Act - Age of Signature/Ink on Pronote = Once the signature is admitted - sending the pronote for age of signature/age of ink not maintainable - Lower court rightly dismissed = Kambala Nageswara Rao ..petitioner Kesana Balakrishna ..Respondent = published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10564

Sec.45 of Evidence Act - Age of Signature/Ink on Pronote = Once the signature is admitted - sending the pronote for age of signature/age of ink not maintainable - Lower court rightly dismissed =
The petitioner filed I.A.No.518 of 20012, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act'), with a prayer to send the promissory note dated 20-10-2008 to the handwriting expert for determination of the age of the signature on the document.
However, the prayer in the I.A is some-what peculiar.  
Even while not disputing his signature on the promissory note, 
the petitioner wanted the age thereof to be determined.  
Several complications arise in this regard.  
The mere determination of the age, even if there exists any
facility for that purpose; cannot, by itself, determine the age of the
signature.  
In a given case, the ink, or for that matter, the pen, may have been
manufactured several years ago, before it was used, to put a signature. 
 If there was a gap of 10 years between the date of manufacture of ink or pen, and
the date on which, the signature was put or document was written,
the document cannot be said to have been executed or signed 
on the date of manufacture of ink or pen.  
It is only in certain forensic cases, that such questions may become relevant.  
The trial Court has taken correct view
of the matter and dismissed the application.
the judgment of the
Karnataka High Court in ISHWAR v. SURESH1.  
That, however, was in relation to a 
criminal trial, where the parameters are totally different.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

C.R.P. No.2168 of 2013

08-11-2013

Kambala Nageswara Rao ..petitioner

Kesana Balakrishna ..Respondent

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri  P.J. Victor

Counsel for respondent :Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao


<GIST

>HEAD NOTE:  

?CASES REFERRED :    
2010 Crl.L.J 1510 Karnataka

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY          

C.R.P. No.2168 of 2013

ORDER:

The respondent filed O.S.No.138 of 2011 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge,
Repalle against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount on the strength of
a promissory note dated 20-10-2008.
It was pleaded that the petitioner herein executed the promissory note in favour
of the father of the respondent, and in spite of repeated demands, he did not
pay the amount, covered by the promissory note.

The petitioner filed a written-statement, opposing the suit.
 According to him,
one promissory note was signed by him in the year 2000, on a request made by one 
Sri Venkata Rama Rao, and after the death of Venkata Rama Rao, when demand was     
made by the father of the respondent, he paid the amount in installments.  
He pleaded that though the father of the respondent promised
to destroy the promissory note, signed by him, the present suit was filed by
putting fictitious date.

The petitioner filed I.A.No.518 of 20012, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act'), with a prayer to send the promissory note dated 20-10-2008 to the handwriting expert
for determination of the age of the signature on the document.
The application was opposed by the respondent.  The trial Court dismissed the
I.A., through order dated 02-04-2013.  Hence,
this revision.

Heard Sri P.J. Victor, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao,  learned counsel for the respondent.

The application, no doubt, is filed under Section 45 of the Act, and it is not
uncommon that such applications are filed in the suits for recovery of money on
the strength of promissory notes.
However, the prayer in the I.A is some-what peculiar.
Even while not disputing his signature on the promissory note, 
the petitioner wanted the age thereof to be determined.  
Several complications arise in this regard.  
The mere determination of the age, even if there exists any
facility for that purpose; cannot, by itself, determine the age of the
signature.  
In a given case, the ink, or for that matter, the pen, may have been
manufactured several years ago, before it was used, to put a signature. 
 If there was a gap of 10 years between the date of manufacture of ink or pen, and
the date on which, the signature was put or document was written,
the document cannot be said to have been executed or signed 
on the date of manufacture of ink or pen.
It is only in certain forensic cases, that such questions may become relevant.  
The trial Court has taken correct view
of the matter and dismissed the application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the
Karnataka High Court in ISHWAR v. SURESH1.  
That, however, was in relation to a 
criminal trial, where the parameters are totally different.

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision.
 If the
petitioner is so advised, he can adduce such evidence, as is in his possession,
to put forward his contention.

The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to
substantiate his plea, by raising the same in the written statement.
        The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P shall also stand disposed
of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.    
Dt.08-11-2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.