R. SUBRAMANI Vs. NAGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the fair and final orders passed in E.A.No. 21 of 2013 in E.P.No. 7 of 2011 in O.S.No. 101 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sattur, the plaintiff/decree holder has filed the above civil revision petition.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 101 of 2008 for recovery of possession. The judgment debtors contested the suit and the Trial Court decreed the suit on 25.10.2010. Pursuant to the decree passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner/decree holder filed execution petition in E.P.No. 7 of 2011. Thereafter, the judgment debtors filed E.A.No. 17 of 2013 under Section 47 CPC stating that in view of the deed of declaration executed on 25.08.2010, the decree is not liable to be executed. In E.A.No. 17 of 2013, the judgment debtors filed an application in E.A.No. 21 of 2013 under Order 26 CPC seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to compare the signature found in the deed of declaration executed on 25.08.2010.

(3.) According to the judgment debtors, the deed of declaration was executed by the decree holder. The decree holder in his counter has stated that the document is a fabricated document and the judgment debtors had forged his signature. Therefore, the document is liable to be rejected.