PERIYASAMY Vs. M BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 24 CPC to withdraw O. S. No. 172 of 2004 now pending on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal and transfer the same to the file of the Fast Track Court at Namakkal or to any other Court having jurisdiction.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. I. A. No. 96 of 2005 was filed to reopen the case for the purpose of cross examining P. W1 and P. W. 2. Admittedly the said application was filed after the commencement of the trial and also after the examination of P. Ws 1 and 2. The petitioners have filed I. A. No. 97 of 2005, seeking permission of the Court to send the suit promissory note to a handwriting expert to compare the admitted signature in the document filed with that of the disputed signature in the promissory note. Both the applications were dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal. The order passed in I. A. NO. 96 of 2005 and 97 of 2005 by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal was not filed along with this petition. The petitioners want the case to be transferred from the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal to the Fast Track Court or any other Court which is having jurisdiction. The allegation in the affidavit is that the learned Judge has suo motu closed the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. But they have not even chosen to file the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal for the perusal of this Court. Admittedly, the suit is on promissory note and the suit was filed in the year 2004 itself. Till 2005, the petitioners/defendants have not taken any steps to send the suit promissory note to the handwriting expert to get his opinion. Only after the commencement of the trial, the defendants have filed I. A. No. 97 of 2005 seeking permission of the Court to send the promissory note to the handwriting expert. Under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court is competent to compare the disputed signature in the promissory note with that of the admitted signature of the defendants which would be available in the vakalath and written statement. Apart from, this there is no serious allegations against the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, warranting this Court to withdraw the case from his file. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to transfer O. S. No. 172 of 2004 from the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal to any other Court.

(3.) IN the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C. M. P. No. 14630 of 2005 is also dismissed. The learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal is directed to proceed with the suit and dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.