CRP(MD)/2315/2023 of AMOSE Vs KENNEDY on 12 October 2026

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the petition filed by him under Order XVI Rule 6 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to summon the Manager of Canara Bank, Kuzhithurai Branch, to produce the account opening form relating to Account No.0960101033010.

2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The suit was instituted in the year 2015. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed the impugned application in the year 2021 seeking to summon the Manager of Canara Bank, Kuzhithurai Branch, to produce the account opening form relating to Account No.0960101033010.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he seeks to have the disputed signature found in the promissory note compared with the contemporaneous admitted signature available in the original bank account opening form. The petitioner has also sought to have the disputed signature compared with the signatures found in the written statement, Vakalat, acknowledgement card and summons. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any admitted signature for comparison with the signature found in the promissory note. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the Civil Revision Petition mainly on the ground that the impugned application was filed belatedly. Apart from the said objection, no other substantial objection has been raised. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner had not come forward to have the disputed signature sent for comparison. However, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner now seeks comparison of the disputed signature with contemporaneous documents, particularly the original bank account opening form maintained by the concerned Bank, and therefore, the learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. This Court has perused the records, particularly the written statement. It is seen that, even in the written statement, the defendant had specifically denied the signature found in the promissory note and from the inception, he had contended that the said document was fabricated. Therefore, the mere delay in filing the application cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny the petitioner an opportunity to establish his defence, particularly when the disputed signature has been specifically denied from the inception.

7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the delay in filing the application cannot be put against the petitioner, particularly when the proposed comparison is with contemporaneous documents and the same is relevant for the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to obtain the original promissory note and call upon the concerned Bank Manager/competent Bank official to produce the original account opening form containing the specimen signature of the defendant. The expenses for obtaining the said document shall be borne by the petitioner. The learned Trial Court shall also verify and obtain, wherever available, the original records containing the admitted signatures of the defendant, including the written statement, Vakalat, acknowledgement card and the signature found in the summons, and send the same along with the disputed promissory note for comparison. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court shall forward the said documents to an appropriate handwriting expert for verification and comparison of the signatures. The expert shall submit his report before the learned Trial Court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.

10. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. 12/10/2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

To,

1. The Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.

2. The Section Officer, VR/ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R.POORNIMA.,J er CRP(MD)No.2315 of 2023 12/10/2026