V.K. SUBRAMANIAM Vs. K.K. SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of an order dated 01.08.2012 made in I.A. No. 60 of 2010 in O.S. No. 411 of 2008 pending on the file of trial Court, namely, Sub Court, Tiruchengode. By the said order, the application filed by the revision petitioner, who is the defendant in the said suit, for referring a receipt said to have been executed by the respondent/plaintiff in full and final settlement of the dispute between the parties along with the document containing admitted signature and admitted thumb impression to the Forensic Expert for comparison and opinion came to be dismissed not only on the ground of belatedness but also based on an observation made against the genuineness of the document in question. Aggrieved by the same and challenging the same, the present Revision has been filed.

(2.) The arguments advanced by Mrs. Asha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and by Mr. M.S. Palani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent are heard. The impugned order and copies of other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(3.) The above said suit has been filed by the respondent herein for specific performance based on an agreement for sale dated 01.07.2005 marked as Ex. A-1 on the side of the respondent/plaintiff before the trial Court. The revision petitioner is contesting the suit contending that he did not execute any agreement for sale; that the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent was only a loan transaction; that the signatures obtained in blank stamp papers were used for creating the suit agreement for sale and that even regarding the same, there was an amicable settlement, pursuant to which a particular amount was paid by the revision petitioner/defendant in full quit of the claim of the respondent herein/plaintiff. In support of the said contention, the revision petitioner relies on a receipt dated 1.09.2007 allegedly executed by the respondent herein/plaintiff. Of-course the same was filed along with the written statement of the revision petitioner/defendant and a reply statement denying the execution of the said receipt was filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff on 07.08.2010 itself. However, the application for referring the said document to the finger print expert came to be made only in the month of January 2012. The circumstances under which the said application came to be filed are that though the execution of the said document which was produced along with written statement was denied by the respondent herein/plaintiff in the reply statement, the petitioner/defendant seems to have been advised that the document could be proved by eliciting admission from the plaintiff while he would be deposing as a witness. But the expectation failed when the document was put to the plaintiff while he was deposing as P.W. - 1, by his denial of the signature and the left thumb impression found therein. Only thereafter the petitioner was advised to seek the opinion of finger print expert and hence, I.A. No. 60 of 2012 came to be filed.