1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.339 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Valliappan : Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant Vs. Nallasivam : Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 04.08.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.301 of 2009 in Original Suit No.35 of 2008 by the Additional Sub Court, Karur. For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 04.08.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.301 of 2009 in Original Suit No.35 of 2008 by the Additional Sub Court, Karur. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.35 of 2008 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a decree of specific performance, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole defendant. During pendency of the same, the petition in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.301 of 2009 so as to utilise the service of an expert for the purpose of comparing the disputed signature found in the sale agreement with the admitted signatures of the petitioner/defendant in the sale deed dated 22.11.2007. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.301 of 2009 as well as the nature of the order passed therein, notice need not be sent to the respondent and the present 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 Interlocutory Application No.301 of 2009 has been filed for the purpose of utilising the service of an expert so as to compare the disputed signature found in the sale agreement with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 admitted signatures of the defendant in the sale deed dated 22.11.2007, but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5. In fact this Court has perused the order passed by the Court below in Interlocutory Application No.301 of 2009, wherein it has been clearly observed that the revision petitioner/ petitioner/defendant has not filed original sale deed dated 22.11.2007 and only a xerox copy of the same has been put into service. Under the said circumstances, the Court below has rightly dismissed the petition in question. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. 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.301 of 2009 in Original Suit No.35 of 2008 by the Additional Sub Court, Karur is confirmed. However, the revision petitioner/petitioner/ defendant is at liberty to produce contemporaneous documents which contain the admitted signatures of the defendant by way of filing a relevant petition. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur. +1 CC to Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocate (SR.No.10280) C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.339 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 24.02.2011 smn NSV/7.3.11/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/