K.RANI GOVINDARAJ Vs. K.PICHAIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dtd. 1/6/2022 passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Karur, in I.A.No.944 of 2016 in O.S.No.367 of 2015.

(2.) According to the revision petitioner, the respondents, as plaintiffs, filed the above suit in O.S.No.367 of 2015 for recovery of money based on a suit promissory note (pro note) said to have been executed by the revision petitioner/defendant; during the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner/defendant filed an application in I.A.No.944 of 2016 for sending the said pro note for expert opinion by comparing the signature on the pro note with the admitted signature of the revision petitioner/defendant, and the trial court, however, dismissed the said application, against which the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would submit that even in the written statement filed by the revision petitioner/defendant, it has been categorically mentioned that the signature of the revision petitioner has been forged, and therefore, it is necessary to compare the signature found in the alleged pro note with that of her admitted signature to rebut the presumption under Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that the trial court, however, without considering the above facts, erroneously dismissed the said application, which calls for interference by this Court. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in K.Palanisamy v. Eswaramurthy, dtd. 29/7/2021 passed in C.R.P.(PD) No.756 of 2017.