9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (4) TMI 1053 - HC - Indian LawsForged and fabricated Promissory note (pro-note) - reference can be made to any expert for ascertaining the age of the ink used on the disputed document/cheque, or not - Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - There is no legal embargo for getting opinion from the handwriting expert, which would effectively assist the Court in reaching a just decision. By no stretch of imagination, it could be stated that the opinion of the expert, is not relevant factor for adjudication of the dispute and in order to unearth the truth, the Court can very well refer the matter for comparison and necessary chemical examination. Following the principles laid down in Apex Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee 1963 (9) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT , it is observed that it is necessary to get the opinion of the handwriting expert as per the prayer contained in the affidavit. Hence, the order passed by the Court below calls for intervention and the same is liable to be set aside, which is accordingly set aside and the Civil Revision petition deserves to be allowed. The trial Court shall follow the relevant procedure for referring the suit pro-note to the handwriting expert and to get the opinion and proceed with the case further. Thus, it is observed that it is necessary to get the opinion of the handwriting expert as per the prayer contained in the affidavit - In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Petitioner's request to refer the suit pro-note to a handwriting expert for comparison. 2. Dispute regarding alteration in the pro-note amount from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 85,000. 3. Rebuttal of respondent's counter affidavit against the petitioner's request. 4. Dismissal of the petitioner's application by the Principal District Munsif Court. 5. Comparison with Supreme Court decisions on referring documents to handwriting experts. 6. Reference to Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment on the relevance of handwriting expert opinion. 7. Disagreement between the parties on the necessity of determining the age of ink on the pro-note. 8. Application of legal principles to allow the opinion of a handwriting expert in civil cases. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to refer the suit pro-note to a handwriting expert for comparison, alleging that the document was altered to show a higher amount owed. The respondent opposed this, claiming the alteration was false and a delay tactic. The Principal District Munsif Court dismissed the application, citing potential delays in the legal process. 2. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of allowing accused individuals to rebut evidence, especially when disputing document contents. The Court highlighted the need to provide opportunities for the accused to present evidence to counter allegations effectively. 3. The petitioner's counsel referenced an Andhra Pradesh High Court decision supporting the relevance of handwriting expert opinions in determining the age of disputed handwriting. The Court stressed the importance of expert opinions in uncovering the truth and facilitating fair adjudication. 4. The respondent's counsel cited a local court decision stating that determining the age of ink might not be crucial and could lead to confusion rather than clarity. The Court noted the differing opinions on the significance of age of ink in resolving disputes. 5. Ultimately, the Court relied on legal principles and Supreme Court guidelines to support the petitioner's request for a handwriting expert opinion. It emphasized the importance of affording defendants ample opportunities to present a defense, especially when specific disputes arise in written statements. 6. The Court concluded that there was no legal impediment to seeking a handwriting expert's opinion, as it could significantly assist in reaching a just decision. The order of the lower court was set aside, and the trial court was directed to refer the suit pro-note to a handwriting expert for examination and proceed accordingly.
|
