THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.3247 & 3314 OF 2009 Dt.09.09.2009 Between: C.Reddamma ……….Petitioner Vs. K.Komaladevi …….Respondent. COMMON O R D E R: These two civil revision petitions are filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by orders, dt.08.05.2009 passed in I.A.No.256 of 2009 in O.S.No.124 of 2005 and I.A.No.255 of 2009 in O.S.No.127 of 2005 respectively, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Palmaner. I.A.No.256 of 2009 in O.S.No.124 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking to send the chit book to the Hand Writing Expert for comparison, in which, the entries are made by the respondent/plaintiff. The case of the petitioner/defendant is that the respondent/plaintiff is running unregistered chits by enrolling surrounding people as subscribers, including the petitioner/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff issued chit books to the members and made entries with her handwriting. As the respondent/plaintiff denied running of chit and chit transaction, genuineness of passbook and consequent entries in the chit book, the petitioner/defendant sought for sending the chit book to the Hand Writing Expert to prove the handwriting of the respondent/plaintiff in the said pass book. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter stating that on 10.09.2002, the petitioner/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.32,000/- from her, in the presence of attestor and scribe. The said suits in O.S.Nos.124 and 127 of 2005 were decreed on 23.04.2007. After passing of the decree, the petitioner/defendant filed a petition to set side the decree and the same was allowed. Thereafter, petitioner/defendant preferred a revision before this court in C.R.P.No.3528 of 2008, for recalling the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the same was dismissed by this court on 28.08.2008. It is also stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant cross-examined the respondent/plaintiff at length. It is also stated that the petitioner/defendant filed the present applications with false allegations and to drag on the proceedings. The hand writing in the alleged chit book, which is fabricated by the petitioner/defendant does not belong to the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition. The court below dismissed the said application on the ground that there is no necessity to compare the alleged chit book entries by the Hand Writing Expert. It was also observed that as there is no consideration for the suit pronote, it is the duty of the petitioner/defendant to prove the case by leading evidence. The court below also observed that at the stage when DWs.1 and 2 were examined and the suits were posted for further evidence, the petitioner/defendant filed this application with an intention to drag on the matter without any basis and thereby dismissed the said petition. Similarly, I.A.No.256 of 2009 in O.S.No.124 of 2005 is filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with similar pleadings. The respondent herein filed counter with similar contentions as sought for in I.A.No.255 of 2009. The court below dismissed the said application on the same ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the impugned orders passed in both the applications are not in accordance with law. The respondent/plaintiff was running unauthorised chits and as the revision petitioners in both the revision petitions are members of the chit, the respondent/plaintiff issued chit books to the persons, who are members of the chit and as security, she obtained blank promissory notes. In spite of discharge of chit amount and without there being any consideration, the respondent/plaintiff filed the said suits. In order to prove that the alleged promissory notes have been brought into existence without there being any consideration and the respondent/plaintiff was running the chits un-authorisedly, it is very essential to send the chit book to the Hand Writing Expert. The dismissal of the petitions amounts to shutting the mouth of the petitioner/defendant and that under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the petitions of similar nature can be filed at any stage of arguments. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the whole intention of the petitioner/defendant is to drag on the matter as far as possible, so as to cause hardship to the respondent/plaintiff in obtaining the decree. He also submits that in spite of receiving summons in both the suits, the petitioner/defendant failed to appear before the court below and consequently remained ex parte. Therefore, an ex parte decree was passed by the court below. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree and the same was allowed. Thereafter, another application was filed by the petitioner/defendant for recalling PWs.1 and 2 and the same was dismissed by the court below. Aggrieved by the said order, C.R.P.No.3528 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner/defendant and the said revision was dismissed by this court. After the disposal of the said revision petition, when the court below proceeded with the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 and posted the suits for further evidence, the petitioner/defendant came forward with the present petitions with a view to drag on the proceedings and to cause hardship to the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner/defendant in filing those applications, which have been rightly dismissed by the court below and the order of the court below does not require interference of this court. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of both the revisions. O.S.Nos.124 and 127 of 2005 were filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of the amount based on the promissory note and I.A.Nos.256 and 255 were filed by the petitioner/defendant in a peculiar manner, seeking a direction to the respondent/plaintiff to write the contents of the chit pass book before the court below and to send the documents along with chit pass book to the Hand Writing Expert for comparison and for giving report in the interest of justice. In support of that contention, an affidavit was filed stating that it was a suit filed for recovery of money covered under the suit promissory note. When the petitioner/defendant remained exparte, an ex parte decree was passed by the court below and on filing of an application to set aside the ex parte order, the same was allowed. At the stage when the suits are to be disposed of, the petitioner/defendant filed another application seeking to recall PWs.1 and 2 for further examination and the same was dismissed. When the court below went on proceeding with the cases in the process of examination of DWs.1 and 2, the petitioner/defendant filed the present applications with a peculiar relief. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act confers powers to the court below to send any document to a Finger Print Expert, but that power can be exercised subject to the facts and circumstances of the case and there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner/defendant in approaching the court below, requesting it to send the relevant documents for the opinion of the Finger Print Expert. Now it has to be seen whether there are any bona fides on the part of the petitioner/defendant in the present case. The reason that was given by the court below was that the suits are based on the promissory notes. Therefore, it is for the respondent/plaintiff to prove his claim on the basis of the promissory note and it is for the petitioner/defendant to disprove the contentions of the respondent/plaintiff, by adducing evidence on his behalf. Therefore, the whole case is based on the recovery of the amount covered under the promissory note. Further, different changes which have undergone in the present case show that it is the intention of the petitioner/defendant to drag on the matter as far as possible. At one stage, having received summons, the petitioner/defendant invited an ex parte order and thereafter filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed with a time bound direction to complete the proceedings finally. The petitioner/defendant filed another application for recalling PWs.1 and 2, which application was also dismissed by the court below. Aggrieved by the said order, C.R.P.No.3258 of 2008 was filed before this court and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the court below went on proceeding with the case, in which process, DWs.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the petitioner/defendant. At that stage, the instant applications were said to have been filed. The court below found that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner/defendant and as the suits are based on the promissory note, the relief sought for by the respondent/plaintiff can be granted basing on the evidence to be adduced by the parties. The court below further observed that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, these two applications have been filed only to drag on the matter and there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner/defendant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, both the revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ G.CHANDRAIAH J., Dt.09.09.2009 tjs