PITCHUMANI THEVAR Vs. SUBBU THAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.NO.723 of 1998 before the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli is the petitioner in both the Revision Petitions.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount based upon a document dated 6.10.1996 treating it as a promissory note. The said document has been marked as Ex.A.1. That thereafter, the defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.1020/2000 to cancel the marking of the said document Ex.A.1 and the same was allowed by the trial Court by its order dated 14.11.2000. Aggrieved by the above said orders, the plaintiff has filed C.R.P.No.897 of 2001. The plaintiff filed an application to amend the plaint in I.A.No.1116 of 2000, and the same was dismissed by the order dated 14.11.2000. As against the same, the plaintiff has preferred C.R.P.No.896/2001.

(3.) From the averments made in the plaint, it is seen that the document dated 6.10.96 is in five Rupees non judicial stamp paper and the same is duly attested by witness and the recitals in it are as follows: gpuhkprhp nehl;L @ehsJ 1172k; Mz;L g[ul;lhrp khjk; 20k; njjp, 1996 tUc&k; mf;nlhgh; khjk; 6Mk; njjp jpUbey;ntyp jhYfh nkyg;ghisak; fU';Fsk; ghftjh; bjUtpy; ,Uf;Fk; gukrptj;njth; mth;fs; Fkhuh; gpr;Rkzpnjth; mth;fSf;F i&a{h; i & bjUtpy; 41Mk; ek;gh; tP;l;oypUf;Fk; KUifa;ah njth; kidtp Rg;g[j;jha; vGjpf;bfhLj;j gpuhkprhp nehl;L vd;dbtd;why; vd; mtru epkpj;jk; vd; fzth; KUifa;ah njtUf;F cly;epiy rhpapy;yhky; ,Uf;fpwgoapdhy; itj;jpa brytpw;Fk; lhf;lUf;F gzk; fl;l ntz;oapUg;gjhy; ehd; j';fsplk; buhf;ff; fldhf :U4000? k; bgw;Wf; bfhz;nld;. i & ehyhapuj;Jf;Fk; khjk; 1f;F :U100-/ f;F tl;o :U:gha; xd;W tPjk; tl;o Tl;o Toa tl;oa[k; KjYk; xU tUc&j;Jf;Fs; je;J ,e;j nehl;il kP;l;of; bfhs;ntdhft[k;@