JOSE VILAYAVEEDAN Vs. GIRI K GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S. No. 240 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, against the respondent for realisation of money on the foot of a promissory note. The respondent/defendant denied the execution of the promissory note. He contended that he had joined a chitty run by the plaintiff and while receiving the prize amount, he was forced to handover a blank signed cheque, two signed blank papers and two unfilled printed forms. Though the amount covered by the chitty was repaid, the signed papers were not handed over. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff has filled the blank portions in the printed form and fabricated the suit promissory note. The plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 and the defendant was examined as D.W. 1.

(2.) After closing the evidence, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1976 of 2010 to recall the plaintiff and to mark certified copies of certain documents. That application was allowed by Ext. P-7 order dated 20-8-2010 on payment of costs and the plaintiff was permitted to prove the documents "subject to admissibility".

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a proof affidavit, in which, he stated the following: While the defendant gave evidence, he deliberately put his signature in the deposition by changing his handwriting. This would be clear from the signature put by the defendant in his deposition while he was examined before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class in a case filed by the plaintiff under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The plaintiff also stated in the affidavit that the deposition of the defendant in S.T. No. 119 of 2007 (the case before the Magistrate's Court) and his signature may be marked as Exts. A-3 and A-3(a) respectively The petitioner also sought to mark copy of the notice sent by him to the defendant and the acknowledgment card in which the signature of the defendant appears.