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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.