MEHBOOB BI Vs. NATESA PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.80 of 2005 on the file of the Learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram., is the revision petitioner. THE respondent/plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of Rs.1,71,500/- from the revision petitioner on the basis of a mortgage deed executed by the defendant/revision petitioner. THE defendant/revision petitioner filed a statement stating that the interest for a period from 15.09.1999 to 02.03.2004 at the rate of 36% p.a. was calculated on Rs.1,00,000/- and that was paid and receipt was also issued by the plaintiff to that effect on 02.03.2004. But the defendant, did not file the said document along with the written statement but later, filed an application to receive the document and that was allowed. During the trial, the plaintiff denied the execution of the document dated 02.03.2004, alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant/revision petitioner and therefore, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.504 of 2006 in O.S.No.80 of 2005 for comparing the signature of Ex.B1 viz., the receipt with admitted documents of the plaintiff and that petition was allowed by the Lower Court and the Lower Court passed the following order "TAMIL"

(2.) THEREFORE, it is seen from the Lower Court order that the parties are directed to produce the contemporaneous document for a comparison. Later on, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.288 of 2008 stating that the she is not able to get the contemporaneous document executed by the plaintiff and therefore, the signature in Ex.B1, which is disputed by the plaintiff could be compared with the admitted signature of the plaintiff, in the plaint as well as in the vakalat, that application was dismissed by the Lower Court, holding that in I.A.No.504 of 2006, an opportunity was given to the defendant to produce the signature of the plaintiff's contemporaneous document dated 02.03.2004 and in that application, the defendant did not pray for comparing the signature of the plaintiff found in the vakalat or in the plaint with that of the Ex.B1 and therefore, in I.A.No.504 of 2006 no order has been passed to compare the signature of the plaintiff found in vakalat and in the plaint with the disputed signature found in Ex.B1., and if the revision petitioner is aggrieved, she would have filed revision against the said order and without filing the revision, the present application is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

(3.) HEARD both sides.