Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner, non one represented. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The nutshell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
The respondent/plaintiff herein filed the suit O.S.No.742 of 2004 for recovery of money from the defendant based on promissory notes. The defendant filed the written statement; whereupon the trial commenced and the plaintiff also adduced evidence. While so, the defendant/revision petitioner did choose to file I.A.No.2517 of 2004 praying the Court to send the suit pro-note to the handwriting expert for comparing the same with the purported signature of the defendant as found in the court summons. After hearing both sides, the lower court dismissed the said I.A. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision petition has been filed on various grounds inter alia thus:
The lower Court without applying the law properly simply rejected the prayer for taking the handwriting expert's assistance for comparing the disputed signature in the pro note with that of the admitted signature of the defendant in the suit summons.
3. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, would appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly, would highlight and spotlight the fact that as per the well settled and recognised proposition of law, a party to the lis cannot seek for comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature, which emerged subsequent to the disputed signature; but, in this case, the defendant has chosen to seek for such a relief, which was correctly dismissed by the lower Court, warranting no interference by this Court in this revision.
4. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (3) LW 58 (Central Bank of India vs. Antony Hardware Mart) has been correctly cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. An excerpt from it would run thus:
15. ........"In this context, we want to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R.1981 S.C. 2085 (Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd., Vs. Invest Import), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:
Admission, unless explained, furnishes the best evidence.
If we apply the above said law laid down by the Supreme Court to the facts of this case, the admission made by D.W.1 is the best evidence as far as Ex.A-5 is concerned. As held in 1999 (6) S.C.C. 104 (K.S.Satyanarayana Vs. V.R.Narayana Rao), in this case also the defendant was trying to get out of the situation by contradicting his signature found in Ex.A-5 with his signature in the vakalath, in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. In such a situation, the Supreme Court has held that the Trial Court could have also compared the signatures of the defendant as provided in
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this case, the Trial Court, instead of comparing the disputed signature in Ex.A-2 with the signature found in the vakalath and written statement, should have compared the admitted signature of the defendant found in Ex.A-5 with the disputed signature found in Ex.A-2. We compared the disputed signature in Ex.A-2 with the admitted signature in Ex.A-5 and we do not find any dissimilarity between two signatures. We are of the view that the signature found in Ex.A-2 and the signature found in Ex.A-5 are similar and is that of the same person."
As such, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the concept ante litem motam, according to which, the signature, which emerged anterior to the disputed signature should be taken into consideration for comparing the disputed signature.
5. Here the peculiar feature involved is that the defendant himself sought for taking the assistance of expert but without furnishing his authentic ante litem motam signatures so as to enable the court to send such signatures of the defendant along with the disputed signature to the expert for comparison purpose. On the other hand, surprisingly and shockingly, the defendant sought the help of the Court to send the signature of the defendant on the suit summons for being compared with the disputed signature in the suit promissory note. The lower Court correctly observed that in the postal acknowledgement card received by the Court, the defendant signed in English, whereas in the Court summons, he signed it in Tamil. As such, the Court adumbrated and highlighted as to how the defendant himself is having at present no specific standard or pattern of signature of his own. In the grounds of revision, the revision petitioner/plaintiff cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 1140. Absolutely, there is no quarrel over the proposition as found enunciated in the said decision, which is to the effect that the Court should be liberal in giving opportunity to the party to take the assistance of an expert instead of Court itself assuming the role of an expert under
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. But here, my discussion supra would clearly indicate and demonstrate that the facts involved are different.
G.RAJASURIA,J vj2
6. Hence, I could see no merit in this revision and accordingly the same is dismissed confirming the order passed by the lower court in I.A.No.2517 of 2004. However, there shall be no order as to costs.