1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2030 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 M.Fathima Kani .. Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff Vs. 1.P.Chellammal 2.P.Rajesh Kannan 3.P.Sumathy .. Respondents/Petitioners/Defendants Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 16.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.156 of 2011 in Original Suit No.213 of 2008 by the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar For Respondents : Mr.S.Sitharthan ORDER The order dated 16.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.156 of 2011 in Original Suit No.213 of 2008 by the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.213 of 2008 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a decree of specific performance, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the petition in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.156 of 2011 so as to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of handing over Exs.A.1, A.3 and A.5 to an expert for the reasons mentioned therein. The Court below has allowed the same. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the respondent/plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the plaintiff and one Pitchai have entered into a sale agreement with regard to the suit property for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and on the date of sale agreement a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been given as an advance and subsequently two payments have been made and to that effect endorsements have been written on the back side of the sale agreement and under the said circumstances, the relief sought for in the present petition is totally unwarranted, but the Court below without considering the clear admission made in the written statement has erroneously allowed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the present petition and therefore the order passed by the Court is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that in the written statement at paragraph No.3, only the paragraphs 3 to 5 of the plaint are admitted and in paragraph No.4, it has been specifically denied the subsequent payment as well as endorsements and since there is a clear denial to the effect that the signatures found in the alleged endorsements are not the signatures of Pitchai, the present petition has been filed for the purpose of comparing the disputed signatures with admitted signature and the Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly allowed the same and therefore the order passed by the Court below need not be interfered with. 5. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.213 of 2008 on the file of the Court below for the relief of specific performance. In the plaint, it has been specifically stated that the suit sale agreement has come into existence on 25.12.1996 and prior to agreement the deceased Pitchai has received a sum of Rs.5,000/- and on the date of sale agreement he received Rs.2,15,000/- and subsequently on 26.09.1999, he has received Rs.1,20,000/- and to that effect endorsement has been made on the back side of the suit sale agreement. 6. In paragraph No.3 of the written statement, it has been specifically admitted paragraphs 3 to 5 of the plaint, but in paragraph No.4 of the written statement, it has been specifically denied that the deceased Pitchai has not received anything on 26.09.1999 and to that effect he has not made any endorsement and the signature found in the alleged endorsement is not the signature of the said Pitchai. Since there is a clear denial with regard to signatures found on the alleged endorsements, assistance of an expert is very much essential so as to compare the disputed signatures with admitted signature. In the instant case, the defendants have filed the present petition for the purpose of disproving the existence of alleged endorsements. Since there is a denial on the part of the defendants with regard to the said aspect, the plaintiff ought to have taken proper steps. But as pointed out earlier, the defendants themselves have taken out the present petition for the purpose mentioned therein. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly allowed the same. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 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.156 of 2011 in Original Suit No.213 of 2008 by the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. smn Sd/- Assistant Registrar[AE] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. +1 cc to M/s.G.Gomathi Sankar, Advocate SR.NO.37082. +2 cc to M/s.S.Sitharthan, Advocate SR.No.36787. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2030 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:28.10.2011 3P/5C RPB 08.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/