1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1367 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Anthony Doss .. Petitioner Vs. Francis (died) 1.Rose Regina Marry 2.Xavier Joseph 3.John Felix 4.Alex Mariadoss 5.Joseph Arockiaraj 6.Marry 7.Louis Pathirisia Marry .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 09.06.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.26 of 2008 in Appeal Suit No.5 of 2002 by the Additional Sub court, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeya Prakash ORDER Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 09.06.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.26 of 2008 in Appeal Suit No.5 of 2002 by the Additional Sub court, Dindigul. 2. The deceased first respondent as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.468 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul praying to pass a money decree, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole defendant. In Original Suit No.468 of 1999, an executable decree has been passed and against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, Appeal Suit No.5 of 2002 has been preferred on the file of the Court below. During pendency of the same, the appellant/defendant as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.26 of 2008 so as to appoint an expert for the purpose of comparing the alleged signatures of the petitioner/defendant found in Exs.A.1 and A.2 with his admitted signatures found in vakalat and written statement. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/ appellant/defendant as revision petitioner. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.26 of 2008 as well as the order passed therein, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that Ex.A.1 has come into existence on 21.02.1994 and Ex.A.2 has become emerged on 06.01.1997 and the signatures found in Exs.A.1 and A.2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 are not the signatures of the revision petitioner/petitioner/appellant and during pendency of Interlocutory Application No.26 of 2008, the revision petitioner has filed a memo along with the partition deed, which has come into existence in the year 1981 and the Court below without considering the genuine efforts made on the side of the revision petitioner has erroneously dismissed Interlocutory Application No.26 of 2008 and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. 5. It is an admitted fact that the deceased first respondent as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.468 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul, praying to pass a money decree, wherein an executable decree has been passed and the same has been challenged by way of filing Appeal Suit No.5 of 2002. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.26 of 2008 so as to appoint an expert for the purpose of comparing the disputed signatures found in Exs.A.1 and A.2 with the admitted signatures of the defendant found in vakalat as well as written statement. 6. Considering the fact that Ex.A.1, suit pronote has come into existence on 21.08.1994 and Ex.A.2, endorsement has come into existence on 06.01.1997 and also considering that the specific request made on the side of the revision petitioner is to compare his admitted signatures found in vakalat as well as written statement and also considering that the document filed along with the memo has come into existence in the year 1981, it is needless to say that the prayer sought for in Interlocutory Application No.26 of 2008 cannot be granted on the ground that all the documents referred to in the petition are not contemporaneous. The Court below after considering the rival contentions putforth on either side has rightly dismissed Interlocutory Application No.26 of 2008 and further the revision petitioner has failed to file this type of petition even before commencement of trial in Original Suit No.468 of 1999. Therefore viewing from any angle the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.26 of 2008 cannot be granted and the order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.26 of 2008 in Appeal Suit No.5 of 2002 by the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Regsitrar(CS) To The Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. smn C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1367 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 14.11.2011 TR : 29.11.2011 : 2p/2c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/