Two handwriting expert’s report desolated by defence evidence

• Judgement was entered in favour of the defendant giving him all the relief prayed for in his answer

By T. Farook Thajudeen  

In a landmark judgement by the Mount Lavinia Additional District Judge, it was observed that the signature of the Defendant in the promissory note which the Plaintiff had claimed was forged had been affirmed by two Government Examiners of Questioned Documents (EQD) as being the signature of the Defendant’s.    

At the adjudication of the case, judgement was given in favour of the Defendant with cost and the action of the Plaintiff was dismissed.   
The Plaintiff had filed this case against the Defendant upon a conditional transfer supported by a Promissory note.   
The plaintiff had sought Rs.50,000 for a month as damages from December 19, 2011 and for the ejection of the defendant from the concerned premises for which a conditional transfer had been made by the Plaintiff.   
During the hearing Senior Counsel Ian Fernando appearing with Mrs Sumudu Ratnayake instructed by Messrs Derek Fernando Associates for the Defendant took up the position that signature on the promissory note which the Plaintiff vehemently submitted to the Court was forged. Even as both government analysts Mr Sunil Ariyabatakandage and Ms Kumudu Apsara supported the Plaintiff’s stance that the Defendant’s signature was correct and one of the same with the specimen signature. 

 
 However, cross-examining at length both Government Analysts accepted that the shiver of the hand and the slant and the slope on the purported Defendant‘s signature is different to the signature in question on the promissory note.   

Counsel Fernando further contended that the Plaintiff has deliberately committed the fraud on the purported promissory note by affixing a stamp, which came into existence one and half years later than the date of signing the promissory note as per the first-day cover.   

Judgment was entered in favour of the defendant giving him all the relief prayed for in his answer. It was observed by Additional District Judge Uddala Suwanddurugoda that the signature on the promissory note upon which the Plaintiff claims from the Defendant was untrue and forged.   

The Defendant had prayed that the Plaintiff action be dismissed.