BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. SELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 22.09.2015 in I.A.No.420 of 2015 in O.S.No.28 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyveli.

(2.) The respondent herein as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 2008 for recovery of money due on promissory note dated 13.11.2004 stating that the revision petitioner/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. But he did not repay the same. After issuance of notice, the plaintiff/respondent filed the suit. The revision petitioner/defendant filed a written statement stating that he has not executed any promissory note, which is forged one. Therefore, the defendant/revision petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.107 of 2014 to send for his service register and the same was allowed. Subsequently, the defendant filed I.A.No.7 of 2014, the said application was closed stating that no signature of the defendant is available in NLC. Now the defendant/revision petitioner has filed the present application in I.A.No.420 of 2015 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. to compare the disputed signature of the defendant in promissory note with the signature to be obtained from him in the open Court and to send the same for obtaining expert's opinion. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application, against which, the present revision has been preferred by the defendant.

(3.) At the time of admission, argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is heard in length and perused the typed set of papers.