M. ETHIRAJAN Vs. G. VARALAKSHMI.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit filed under Order XXXVII Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, aggrieved by the dismissal of an application seeking leave to defend the suit and having challenged the same by way of an appeal in A.S.No.78 of 2023, is the revision petitioner. In the pending appeal, the revision petitioner had filed I.A.No.6 of 2024 under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature in the promissory note for comparison to the expert. The said application was taken out, along with another application for adducing additional evidence in the appeal. The First Appellate Court has dismissed both the applications, as against which, the defendant has come up by way of the present revisions.

(2.) I have heard Mr.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant in both the revisions. Despite service of notice, the respondent/plaintiff has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. I have proceeded to hear Mr.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have gone through the records.

(3.) The respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.4370 of 2021 as a summary suit under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The petitioner took out an application in I.A.No.1 of 2022, seeking leave to defend the said suit. The Trial Court dismissed the application and refused to grant leave to defend the suit. Challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4370 of 2021, the defendant has preferred A.S.No.78 of 2023. In the pending appeal, the defendant has filed I.A.No.6 of 2024 for sending the disputed promissory note to the forensic lab, for expert opinion. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the application, as against which, one revision has been filed. In view of the dismissal of the application to adduce additional evidence in the appeal, the second revision has also been filed.