SAMPATHKUMAR Vs. P SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order of the District Munsif Court at Mettupalayam, dated 31.01.2008 in I.A.No.895 of 2007 in O.S.No.209 of 2004.

(2.) THE 4th defendant in O.S.No.209 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Mettupalayam is the Revision Petitioner. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 31.01.2008 in I.A.No.895 of 2007 dismissing the application filed by him under Section 151 C.P.C. to summon the concerned signature expert for comparison of signatures.

(3.) THE 4th defendant, the Revision Petitioner herein filed a written statement and contested the suit. According to the 4th defendant, the property was not purchased by K.Natarajan alone and in fact he also contributed his funds for constructing the house. In fact, the electricity connection is standing in his name. He denied that the said K.Natarajan entered into an agreement of sale for Rs.75,000/-. He never knew that K.Natarajan executed a sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. He contends that the plaintiff is a financier and K.Natarajan borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff for an urgent need and this was well known to the defendants 4 and 5 who are the attestors in the said created agreement. He stated that the property mentioned in the sale agreement would fetch nearly about Rs.2.5 lakhs on the date of the sale agreement and he also denied that a sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid by the plaintiff at the time of entering into the alleged agreement. He further submitted that the sale agreement is nothing but a financial transaction and therefore it is a created one for the purpose of lending loan to K.Natarajan. After receiving the notice dated 11.02.2004, he contacted the plaintiff and enquired about the transaction. At that time, the plaintiff agreed to receive the loan amount of Rs.40,000/- borrowed by the deceased K.Natarajan along with interest and therefore, he did not send any reply to the notice. Now, the plaintiff filed the false suit for the purpose of coercing the defendants and also for illegally grabbing the property. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.