1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD)No.2363 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 P.Sivakumar .. Petitioner Vs. M.Thangarasu .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 18.10.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.306 of 2011 in Original Suit No.286 of 2008 by the Principal Sub Court, Karur. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Selvaraj For Respondent : Mr.V.Perumal ORDER Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 18.10.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.306 of 2011 in Original Suit No.286 of 2008 by the Principal Sub Court, Karur. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.286 of 2008 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a decree of money on the basis of the suit pro-note dated 20.01.2008, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole defendant. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.306 of 2011 so as to utilise service of an expert for the purpose of comparing the disputed signature found in the suit pro-note dated 20.01.2008 with the admitted signature of the petitioner/defendant. The Court below has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/ defendant as revision petitioner. 3. It has been contended on the side of the revision petitioner that Original Suit No.286 of 2008 has been instituted on the basis of the alleged suit pro-note dated 20.01.2008 and the revision petitioner/defendant has not executed any such pro-note in favour of the plaintiff muchless on 20.01.2008 and the suit pro-note is nothing, but a concocted one and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for the relief sought for therein, but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 4. It has been contended on the side of the respondent/plaintiff that in the additional written statement the signature of the revision petitioner/defendant has been clearly admitted and further in Original Suit No.286 of 2008, evidence on the side of the plaintiff has already been completed and the matter stands for adducing evidence on the side of the defendant and under the said circumstances for the purpose of protracting the proceedings, the present petition has been filed and the Court below has rightly dismissed the same and therefore the order passed by the Court below is not liable to be interfered with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. It is an admitted fact that Original Suit No.286 of 2008 has been instituted for getting the relief sought for therein on the basis of the suit pro-note dated 20.01.2008 alleged to have been executed by the defendant after receiving the amount mentioned therein. The consistent stand taken on the side of the revision petitioner/defendant is that he has not executed any pro-note in favour of the plaintiff muchless on 20.01.2008 and he has also not received anything from the plaintiff. 6. Of course, it is true that on the side of the revision petitioner/defendant, additional written statement has been filed, wherein it has been clearly stated that in the year 2004, he has taken a chit and at the time of taking chit, he has put his signature on blank pro-note and the present plaintiff is a closed person to the person, who conducted the chit. 7. Either in the original written statement or in the additional written statement, the revision petitioner/defendant has not admitted the alleged signature found in the suit pro-note dated 20.01.2008 and further the transaction mentioned in the additional written statement is of the year 2004 and the suit pro-note is of the year 2008. Therefore it is quite clear that the revision petitioner/defendant has clearly denied the signature found in the suit pro-note dated 20.01.2008. 8. Considering the fact that there is a clear denial on the part of the revision petitioner/defendant, with regard to the signature found in the suit pro-note dated 20.01.2008, the Court can seek assistance of an expert. The Court below without considering the nature of denial made in the original written statement as well as in the additional written statement has simply dismissed the petition. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Court below in Interlocutory Application No.306 of 2011 in Original Suit No.286 of 2008 is liable to be set aside. 9. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.306 of 2011 in Original Suit No.286 of 2008 by the Principal Sub Court, Karur is set aside and the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.306 of 2011 in Original Suit No.286 of 2008 is allowed and the Principal Sub Court, Karur is directed to observe all formalities and send the disputed document with the admitted document for the scrutiny of expert. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd ASST REGISTRAR ( RTI Act ) /TRUE COPY/ smn SUB ASST REGISTRAR To:: The Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur. 1CC TO MR. V. PERUMAL, ADVOCATE, SR: 44618: 1CC TO MR. C. SELVARAJ, ADVOCATE, SR: 44508: DM::2012::JANUARY:02:: C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2363 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 2P:4C:: 20.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/