R ANANTHARAMAN Vs. M R RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 24.9.2008, made in I.A.No.82 of 2008, in O.S.No.111 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1) Salem.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed the suit in O.S.No.111 of 2007, before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Salem, for a decree against the defendant, for a sum of Rs.5,51,102/- and the interest thereon, at the rate of 24% per annum, from the date of filing of the said suit and for costs. He had also filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.82 of 2008, praying that the trial Court may appoint an Advocate Commissioner to submit the suit promissory note, dated 14.1.2006, along with the admitted signature and thumb impression of the respondent to the handwriting expert to get his opinion.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that the prayer of the petitioner, in I.A.No.82 of 2008, is only for a direction to direct the handwriting expert to compare the signature and the thumb impression of the respondent found in the promissory note, with the signature found in the sale deed, dated 28.4.2005, bearing document No.712 of 2005, alleged to have been singed by the respondent. However, the trial Court had gone into the issue raised by the respondent, with regard to the age of the ink used in the promissory note and since, it had been found that the age of the ink cannot be scientifically predicted with precision, it had rejected the request of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, he had stated that he had no objection for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to get an expert opinion, as prayed for by the petitioner. However, the trial Court, on an erroneous basis, had dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner.