RAJAJI BHARATH KUMAR Vs. K MURALIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON ordering notice of motion, I have had an occasion of hearing the Bar for the respective parties, even while the revision was sought to be admitted against the impugned order passed by the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in LA. No.7716 of 1996 in O.S. No. 124 of 1985 dated 3.7.1996 allowing a petition filed under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to subject two documents viz., letters dated 18.10.1983 and 17.7.1984, claimed to have been written by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff, to the examination of the hand-writing expert for the reasoning that they are being disputed with regard to their contents, challenging the propriety and legality of the impugned order.

(2.) THE petitioner herein filed the suit for the recovery of the balance due on the hire purchase agreement from the defendants and it is being resisted by the defendants by filing a detailed written statement. When the suit was about to be posted in the list for trial and when P.W.1, plaintiff's side witness was about to get into the witness box, it appears, a petition under O.13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed to condone the delay of filing two documents viz., letters dated 18.10.1983 and 17.7.1984 said to have been written by the first defendant/respondent herein. Learned trial Judge, after hearing the objections from the other side, has condoned the delay in filing of the same and has thus, received the same to be marked in evidence as the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff. After this, the plaintiff as P.W. 1 or his witness is yet to come to the witness box for giving oral evidence. It was, at this stage, the first defendant viz., the respondent herein, after having come to know the contents of the same, filed a petition under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction from the Court below to send the said two letters for the examination of the hand-writing expert, as the contents of the same, according to the first defendant, do not belong to him. While stating so, it was contended by the first defendant that the revision petitioner had taken the signature of the respondent in several papers and the two letters were amongst the same which were subsequently used for creating the letters by inserting the contents of recent origin. Though the petition was resisted by the revision petitioner/plaintiff, learned trial Judge accepted the prayer of the respondent and allowed the petition on depositing some amount for sending the letters for the examination of the hand-writing expert by passing the impugned order. It is, this order which is being challenged in this revision pending admission as aforementioned.