THIRUNAVUKKARASU Vs. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision is the order of First Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam dated 30.6.2008 in I.A. No. 9 of 2008 in O.S. No. 615 of 2006 filed under Rule 76 and Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, declined to send for the documents from the office of Public Works Department, Cauvery Division, Kumbakonam.

(2.) The Respondent/Plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 615 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note, stating that the Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by executing a promissory note on 14.3.2004 agreeing to repay the sum with interest @ 12% p.a. The Defendant has resisted the suit by a filing written statement denying the execution of the promissory note. In the written statement, the Defendant has raised a plea of forgery and contended that the Defendant's signature in the promissory note was fabricated.

(3.) After framing of issues, PW.1 was examined and when PW.1 was in the box, the Defendant filed the petition in I.A. No. 9 of 1998 under Civil Rules of Practice 76 to send for certain documents from the Public Works Department (Cauvery Division), Kumbakonam such as (i) Payment Register for the month of February 2004 where the Defendant put his signature for payment; (ii) Leave Application of the Defendant dated 14.9.2004, from the office of the Public Works Department, Cauvery Division, Kumbakonam in which he is working. According to the Defendant, these documents which are in the custody of the Public Works Department are required for comparison of his signature found in the promissory note.