IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-03-2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN C.R.P.No.3971 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 Sundaraj .. Petitioner. Versus S.Jayakumar .. Respondent. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order in I.A.No.341 of 2009, in O.S.No.53 of 2005, dated 8.9.2009, on the file of the Sub Court, Udumalpet. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sivaji For Respondent : Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and final order, dated 8.9.2009, made in I.A.No.341 of 2009, in O.S.No.53 of 2005, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, by his order, dated 8.9.2009, had directed the manager C.R.M., Life Insurance of India, Divisional Office, Trichy Road, Coimbatore, to send the documents (policy proposal, dated 28.3.1993), L.I.C Policy No.761266890 of S.Jayakumar (petitioner) to be produced before the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, based on the request made by the respondent, in I.A.No.341 of 2009. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent had filed an interlocutory application, earlier, in I.A.No.151 of 2007, to get an expert opinion, regarding the genuineness of the signatures found in the promissory note in question. The said petition had been dismissed, on 14.8.2007. However, the respondent had filed a civil revision petition before this Court, in C.R.P.No.3949 of 2007. The said civil revision petition had been allowed, with a direction to send for the document and with a further observation that the Subordinate Court may decide, as to whether the said document must be sent for comparison with the disputed signature, by an expert. However, the office of the District Collector, Coimbatore, had informed that the said document had been destroyed, as it was a 10 year old document. Thereafter, the respondent had requested for the comparison of the disputed signature, with the admitted signature in the L.I.C of India Policy proposal, dated 28.3.1993. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the interlocutory application had been filed by the respondent only to protract the proceedings. There is no bona fide intention in the filing of the application before the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that it was necessary for the respondent to file an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.341 of 2009, requesting the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, to direct the production of the L.I.C Policy Proposal, dated 28.3.1993, bearing Policy No.761266890, to compare the disputed signature, with the signature affixed in the said policy. There is no intention on the part of the respondent to protract the proceedings, as it is a genuine request made, in order to establish the genuineness of the signature in the promissory note in question. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present civil revision petition. There is nothing to show on behalf of the petitioner that the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.341 of 2009, had been filed by the respondent, in order to protract the proceedings, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, in O.S.No.53 of 2005. It cannot be said that, since the respondent had filed an earlier interlocutory application, in I.A.No.151 of 2007, the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.341 of 2009, cannot be allowed. Since, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced, the civil revision petition stands dismissed, as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index:Yes/No 17-03-2010 Internet:Yes/No csh To The Sub Court, Udumalpet. M.JAICHANDREN J. csh C.R.P.No.3971 of 2009 17-03-2010