Skip to content


T. Elangovan Vs. S. Ponnambalam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P (PD) (MD) No. 196 of 2015 & M.P (MD) No. 1 of 2015
Judge
AppellantT. Elangovan
RespondentS. Ponnambalam
Excerpt:
.....2012. the specific contention of the petitioner/first defendant is that the said document is a forged document. therefore the respondent/plaintiff filed an application to direct the revision petitioner to produce the required contemporaneous document to the court, so as to compare the signatures found in his undertaking affidavit. unless the document has been produced by the revision petitioner, the respondent/plaintiff cannot establish the said document as not forged and the same is genuine. further the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is for the respondent/plaintiff to establish before the court that the said document is a genuine one. therefore he cannot compel the revision petitioner/first defendant to produce the document for comparison of the said.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2014 in O.S.No.1159 of 2012, dated 22.12.2014, on the file of VI Addl.Sub-Judge(Trainee District Judge), Madurai.)

Order:

1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2014 in O.S.No.1159 of 2012, dated 22.12.2014, on the file of VI Addl.Sub-Judge(Trainee District Judge), Madurai.

2. According to the Petitioner, the respondent herein has filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2014 in O.S.No.1159 of 2012 under Order 11 Rule 14 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking for a direction to the petitioner to produce documents maintained by him containing his admitted signature in his official or normal course for the period contemporaneous to 13.5.2005 and to disclose any other document in his custody.

3. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner herein objected the ownership of the respondent/Plaintiff in the suit property. The Petitioner/first defendant never executed any document as alleged by the respondent/Plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of his petition. The document, dated 13.5.2005 is a forged one and it is for the Petitioner to prove that the respondent has manipulated the stamp-papers and corrected the alleged undertaking. Therefore it has to be dismissed at the threshold. The court below has considered the application and passed a detailed order by stating that the Petitioner herein questioning the authenticity of the alleged document, dated 13.5.2005 which is executed in the stamp paper of the year 2012. The specific contention of the Petitioner/first defendant is that the said document is a forged document. Therefore the respondent/Plaintiff filed an application to direct the revision petitioner to produce the required contemporaneous document to the Court, so as to compare the signatures found in his undertaking affidavit. Unless the document has been produced by the revision petitioner, the respondent/plaintiff cannot establish the said document as not forged and the same is genuine. Further the learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that it is for the respondent/Plaintiff to establish before the Court that the said document is a genuine one. Therefore he cannot compel the revision petitioner/first defendant to produce the document for comparison of the said signatures. The trial Court without properly appreciated the case,erroneously allowed the said application. Therefore the revision Petitioner has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition for the relief stated supra.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/Plaintiff would submit that the allegations has been made by the revision petitioner against the respondent/Plaintiff that the said document dated 13.5.2005 is a forged one. Therefore, it is for the respondent/Plaintiff to prove that the said document is genuine and not a forged one. Hence the present application is filed before this Court for a direction to the petitioner to produce documents maintained by him containing his admitted signature in his official or normal course for the period contemporaneous to 13.5.2005 and to disclose any other document in his custody. Even though wrong provision has been stated in the petition, it is not a ground to reject the said application. Hence the Court below has rightly allowed the application and directed the revision Petitioner/Ist defendant to produce the document in his possession or any undisputed signature which contains his admitted signature on or before 20.01.2015, for comparison.

5. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/Plaintiff that if the said document has been produced as directed by the Court below, the respondent/Plaintiff can prove his case that the said document is genuine and the same is not a forged one. When the revision Petitioner/first defendant has disputed the signature and denied the signature and alleged that the said document is forged. Therefore the burden is on the part of the respondent/plaintiff to prove that the said document is not a forged one and the same is genuine. Hence, the said application filed by the respondent/Plaintiff herein for a direction to produce the necessary documents during the contemporaneous period for the comparison of the signature will not prejudice the rights of the revision Petitioner/first defendant. In other aspects, if the said document is produced and the same has been compared with the signature in the undertaking affidavit, dated 13.5.2005, then the real issue will be decided. In view of the above reasonings, the Civil Revision Petition fails.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //