BALASUNDER Vs. RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P.(PD) No.318 of 2010: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 6.8.2009, made in I.A.No.156 of 2009, in O.S.No.40 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Panruti. C.R.P.(PD) No.319 of 2010: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 6.8.2009, made in I.A.No.158 of 2009, in O.S.No.40 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Panruti. C.R.P.(PD) No.320 of 2010: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 6.8.2009, made in I.A.No.159 of 2009, in O.S.No.40 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Panruti. The petitioner in the Civil Revision Petitions is the defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.40 of 2008, filed by the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein. The petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.156 of 2009, praying that the trial Court may be pleased to receive certain documents in the suit. I.A.No.158 of 2009, had been filed to recall D.W.1. and to re-examine him. I.A.No.159 of 2009, had been filed to reopen the suit for marking of certain documents in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The trial Court, by its order, dated 6.8.2009, had dismissed the interlocutory applications. Challenging the order, dated 6.8.2009, the petitioner had preferred the above Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.) The petitioner had stated that the respondent in the Civil Revision Petitions had filed the money suit against the petitioner, in O.S.No.40 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Panruti, claiming a sum of Rs.3,43,470/-, with interest. The respondent had stated that the petitioner had executed a promissory note in favour of one Viswanatha Reddiar, which had been made over in favour of the respondent, on 7.3.2008. The petitioner had filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.156 of 2009, for receiving certain documents in support of the petitioner"s case. Interlocutory applications, in I.A.Nos.158 and 159 of 2009, were filed to reopen the matter and to recall D.W.1, to mark the documents in favour of the petitioner, to establish the fact that the promissory note, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner, is a forged, concocted and fabricated document.