PATTABI REDDIAR Vs. M. SUDHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the learned Magistrate without numbering the petition, dismissed the same. It was submitted that this petition was a necessary corollary for passing orders in C.M.P. No. 44 of 2006. The learned Magistrate failed to note that the expert to whom the pronote was sent had requested for the admitted signature of the petitioner relating to the year 2002-2003. The petitioner has filed the petition to summon the documents which contain the admitted signature of the petitioner herein and available in the Court records in O.S. No. 600 of 2002 pending before the Sub Court, Ranipet. The learned counsel further submitted that if the petitioner's request is not complied with in unnumbered C.M.P.S.R. No. 594A of 2007, then the earlier order passed in C.M.P. No. 44 of 2006 would be rendered infructuous. Unless the required documents are produced before the expert, he would not be in a position to carry out his assignment and render an opinion. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to set-aside the learned Judge's order.