M.KAMALAKANNAN Vs. VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments advanced by Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mr.C.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(2.) The defendant in the original suit O.S.No. 113/2009 pending on the file of Sub Court, Vellore is the petitioner in the civil revision petition. The said suit has been filed by the respondent herein/defendant against the petitioner for recovery of money based on the suit promissory note dated 12.07.2006 allegedly executed by the revision petitioner/defendant for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

(3.) The revision petitioner/defendant is contesting the suit denying the alleged loan transaction and also the execution of the suit promissory note. In the light of his contention made in the written statement, he wanted to have the suit promissory note scientifically examined by a handwriting expert and compared with an admitted signature of the revision petitioner/defendant, to enable him to prove that the suit promissory note is not genuine. For the said purpose, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No. 329/2009 under Order 20 Rule 10-A of CPC with the following prayer "the court may be pleased to send the document to the Forensic Science Department to compare the signature found in the suit promissory note alleged to be that of the defendant with any other admitted signature."