VELUSAMY Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 20.1.2010, made in I.A.No.917 of 2009, in O.S.No.79 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram.

(2.) The respondent had filed the suit, in O.S.No.79 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, praying for a money decree, based on a promissory note.

(3.) The petitioner, who is the defendant in the said suit, had filed a written statement claiming that the promissory note, based on which the respondent had filed the suit, is a forged document. He had also stated that the signature found on the promissory note does not belong to him. It has been further stated that the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.917 of 2009, under Order 26 Rule 10(A) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, praying for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to get an opinion from the handwriting expert of the Forensic Department, Chennai, by comparing the suit promissory note with the signatures, in the admitted documents. However, the trial Court, by its order, dated 20.1.2010, had held that nothing had prevented the petitioner from seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner immediately after the filing of the written statement. Instead the petitioner has filed the interlocutory application, deliberately, during the trial of the suit, only with the mala fide intention of delaying the proceedings in the suit.