(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of dismissing the petitioner's application to mark the Expert Opinion and also to examine the handwriting expert.
(2.) The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.95 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi for recovery of money based on a pronote. The plaintiff's case was that the petitioner herein had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from one Gopal Udaiyar by executing a pronote. Subsequently, the said Gopal Udaiyar made over the pronote in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being the assignee of the pronote, has made a demand. Thereafter, filed a suit for recovery of money based on the said pronote. The suit has been contested by the petitioner, thereby denying the execution of the pronote as well as the alleged endorsement of made over by the Gopal Udaiyar, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. In order to prove his defence, the petitioner had filed an application before the Trial Court to send the disputed thumb impression alleged to have made by the Gopal Udaiyar, which is marked as Ex.A2, with that of the admitted thumb impression of Gopal Udaiyar to the Handwriting Expert.
(3.) The Handwriting Expert has given an opinion that the thumb impression found in the reverse side of the promissory note is unfit for comparison as it is highly smudged, indistinct and does not reveal sufficient number of clear ridge details for comparison and opinion. Thereafter, the trial Court decreed the suit by a judgment and decree dated 06.08.2012. Challenging the said juddgment and decree, the petitioner herein filed an appeal in A.S.NO.4 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Villupuram at Kallakurichi. Pending appeal, the petitioner herein had filed an application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to examine the Handwriting Expert as a witness and the said application has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court by an order dated 20.11.2015. Challenging the same, the present Revision has been filed.