SAMPATH Vs. KARTHIKEYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition is the fourth defendant in the suit. THE respondent herein is one of the plaintiffs. THE first plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for the recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note dated 17. 2. 1990 executed by the defendants. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the first plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5. THE second plaintiff filed an application before the lower court to call for the pay bill and the acquittance register for the year 1990 maintained in the Taluk Office, Cheyyar relating to the fourth defendant. THE application was filed on the ground that the fourth defendant has denied the execution of the promissory note and in the written statement filed by him, he has stated that the promissory note was manipulated. THE second plaintiff in the affidavit filed before the lower court has stated that whereabouts of the attestors to the suit promissory note are not known and are not available. THE case of the plaintiff before the lower court was that inspite of his best efforts, he was not able to trace the attestors and in those circumstances, it was prayed that to compare the signature of the fourth defendant, the court should summon the records, the pay bill and the acquittance register for the year 1990 maintained by the Taluk Office, Cheyyar. THE revision petitioner who is the respondent in the application has filed a counter-affidavit to the effect that the averment that the scribe and the attestors of the promissory note are not available is not correct and it is the duty of the plaintiff to examine the handwriting expert and to prove the signature of the fourth respondent. THE case of the revision petitioner before the lower court is that instead of examining the hand-writing expert, it is not open to the second plaintiff to file an application to call for the records from the Taluk Office, Cheyyar. THE lower court considered the averments made in the affidavit and the counter-affidavit and held that in the interest of justice it is necessary to call for the records from the Taluk Office, Cheyyar so that the signature of the fourth defendant found therein can be compared with the signature found in the suit promissory note and after comparison, it can be sent to the hand-writing expert to find out whether the revision petitioner has signed the suit promissory note or note. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in the revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the lower court ought not to have called for the records for comparison of the signature and the execution of the pronote can be proved independently with the help of attestors. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also contended that the attestors are readily available and when the averment that the attestors are not available is denied by the revision petitioner, the lower court should have considered the objections of the revision petitioner and without considering the same, the lower court erred in ordering the production of the records from the Taluk Office, Cheyyar.