TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (7) TMI 709
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also stated in the promissory note. Demand was made under Ex.A.2, to settle the transaction, for which the defendant sent a reply denying the execution and the borrowing. The suit was, therefore, necessitated. 4. In the written statement filed by the defendant, respondent herein, he denied the execution and stated that as between himself and plaintiff, there had been earlier transactions in dealing with paddy, and plaintiff has forged his signature from the accounts and has fabricated the promissory note. 5. The trial Court examined P.W.1 (plaintiff) and also one of the attestors to Ex.A.1 as P.W.2. Defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and another witness as (scribe of Ex.A1) as D.W.2 P.Ws. 1 to 3 were marked on the side of plaintiff, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wanted the revision to be dismissed. 9. After hearing learned Counsel for both parties, I feel that the procedure adopted by the Court below is not proper. As rightly contended by Learned Counsel for petitioner, the main reason for dismissing the suit is based on a comparison of the signature. It is settled law that the Court cannot act as an expert. In a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran and another, AIR1996SC1140 . Their Lordships followed an earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in State Delhi Admn. v. Pali Ram, 1979CriLJ17 " and held as follows in paragraph 18. Relevant portion reads thus: "Though it is the province of the expert to act as judge or jury after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as held thus: ". . .Although the section (Section 73 of Evidence Act) specifically empowers the court to compare the disputed writings with the specimen/admitted writings shown to be genuine, prudence demands that the court should be extremely slow in venturing an opinion on the basis of mere comparison, more so, when the quality of evidence in respect of specimen/admitted writings is not of high standard. . ." 11. Raju, J., as he then was, has also taken a similar view in the decision reported in Dhanakodi Padayachi v. Muthukumaraswami, 1997 (II) M.L.J. 37. 12. The Court below has concluded its judgment in para. 16 thus: Tamil Matter 13. It is clear therefrom that the main reason for dismissing the suit is comparison of the ....