9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the filing of a suit for recovery of a certain amount based on a promissory note, the dismissal of an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the promissory note to a handwriting expert for determination of the age of the signature, and the subsequent revision of the trial court's decision. Filing of Suit for Recovery: The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of an amount based on a promissory note dated 20-10-2008, alleging non-payment despite repeated demands. The petitioner contended that he had signed a promissory note in 2000 at the request of another individual, and after that individual's death, he made payments in installments. The petitioner claimed that the suit was filed with a fictitious date, despite assurances that the original promissory note would be destroyed. Dismissal of Application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act: The petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to determine the age of the signature on the promissory note dated 20-10-2008. The trial court dismissed the application, noting that while such applications are common in suits involving promissory notes, the specific request in this case was peculiar. The court highlighted the complexities involved in determining the age of a signature, especially considering factors like the age of the ink or pen used. The court emphasized that the mere determination of age does not conclusively establish the age of the signature, except in certain forensic cases. The court also referenced a judgment from the Karnataka High Court related to a criminal trial, emphasizing the different parameters involved. Revision of Trial Court's Decision: The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's decision to dismiss the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court advised the petitioner to present any evidence in his possession to support his contentions. The Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.) was accordingly dismissed, allowing the petitioner to raise his plea in the written statement. The court disposed of the miscellaneous petition filed in the C.R.P. with no order as to costs.
|
