In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:28.07.2006 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.978 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 Nagaraj .. Petitioner vs. Kannan .. Respondent Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.12.2005 made in I.A.No.302 of 2005 in O.S.No.293 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif, Mettupalayam. For petitioner : Mr. G. Karthikeyan ORDER The above revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Mettupalayam dated 13.12.2005 made in I.A.No.302 of 2005 in O.S.No.293 of 2004, in and by which the learned Judge allowed the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 CPC. 2. The said application was filed by the defendant in the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is stated that the respondent / plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of money due on a promissory note and the petitioner/defendant borrowed only Rs.60,000/- on 01.06.2001 and the respondent / plaintiff on the same day obtained his signature in a blank stamped promissory note and asked the petitioner to write his name below his signature to identify the promissory note. According to the petitioner/defendant, the respondent/ plaintiff has filled up the blank promissory note and filed the suit. Since he is disputing his signature found in the promissory note and that the handwriting as to the age is different from that of other parts of the promissory note, the defendant filed the present application seeking the opinion of an expert to prove his case. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter statement disputing the claim of the petitioner. 3. The learned District Munsif, after satisfying himself and after finding that, in view of the defence/stand taken by the defendant, the handwriting as to the age and the signature of the defendant found in the document plays a vital role in deciding the issue, allowed the application filed by the defendant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the light of the defence taken in the written statement and on going through the reasonings of the learned Judge in allowing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant, I do not find any valid ground for interference. As a matter of fact, the order impugned directed the Expert from the Forensic Science Department to visit the Court concerned and examine the disputed signature in the suit promissory note and submit his report. By allowing the said application, the plaintiff is no way prejudiced. Further, it is open to the plaintiff to file his objections, if any, to the report of the expert. When such remedy is available, there is no need to entertain the above revision. Accordingly, the revision fails and the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected MP., is also dismissed. kh Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The District Munsif Mettupalayam. 1 cc To Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.34013. C.R.P.(PD)No.978/06 JSK(CO) RVL 18.08.2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/