KARUPPATHAL Vs. PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

(2.) THIS revision has been preferred challenging the order, dated 14.02.2008 made in I.A.No.202 of 2006 in O.S.No.636 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perunthurai.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the pettiioner is an aged woman and fraud has been played on her. In the grounds of the revision, the petitioner has stated that the trial court had failed to see that the memo was filed on 22.11.2001 with a fabricated document created by the first respondent. LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner also raised allegation against the counsel, who appeared for the petitioner before the Court below.