TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside order for ink analysis on promissory note, plaintiff's burden highlighted</h1> <h3>Sundaramoorthy Versus R. Palanisamy</h3> The Court set aside the trial Court's order allowing the sending of a promissory note for ink analysis, emphasizing the plaintiff's burden to prove the ... - Issues involved: The issues involved in this case include the filing of a Civil Revision Petition to set aside an order passed in I.A.No.79 of 2008 in O.S.No.81 of 2007, regarding the age of ink in a disputed promissory note.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Application for Sending Promissory Note to Forensic Science DepartmentThe plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The defendant initially filed an application to send the disputed documents to the Forensic Science Department but later withdrew it. Subsequently, the defendant filed a new application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the promissory note to ascertain the age of the ink. The trial Court allowed this application, appointing an Advocate Commissioner, which led to the filing of a Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff.Issue 2: Arguments of the PartiesThe plaintiff argued that the trial Court erred in allowing the application as a similar one was withdrawn earlier without liberty to file another. The plaintiff also cited a previous judgment stating that determining the age of ink may not serve any useful purpose. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the earlier withdrawal was due to lack of facility and the new application was filed upon learning of the availability of the facility. The defendant believed that expert opinion on the age of ink could benefit their case.Issue 3: Court's DecisionThe Court noted that in a case like this, it is the plaintiff's responsibility to prove the execution of the promissory note. Sending the note for ink analysis may only lead to confusion, as previously held by the Court. Additionally, the Court observed that the defendant did not obtain liberty when withdrawing the earlier application. Consequently, the trial Court's order was set aside, and the Civil Revision Petition was allowed with no costs incurred.This judgment highlights the importance of establishing evidence in civil cases and the Court's discretion in determining the relevance of expert opinions in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
