IRULAPPAN Vs. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 27. 2. 1997 passed in I. A. No. 190 of 1997 in O. S. No. 254 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for sending the suit document for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of this petition are as follows:- THE petitioner is the defendant in the suit. THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. No. 254 of 1994 before the lower court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,66,800 on a promissory note dated 15. 7. 1991 executed by the petitioner. Though the defendant, the petitioner admitted that the signature in the promissory note was put by him, his case was that it was put on a blank promissory note given by him in the year 1986 and as such, he has never executed any promissory note dated 15. 7. 1991. In order to establish his case that the signature in the suit promissory note was put in the year 1986 and other writings in the promissory note were not made in 1986, the petitioner/defendant filed an application in I. A. No. 190 of 1997 for sending the suit promissory note for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. This application was contested by the respondent. Ultimately, by an order dated 27. 2. 1997 the lower court dismissed the application mainly on the reason that the belated attempt by the petitioner is only to drag on the proceedings further, though the suit was filed in 1994 and the written statement had been filed by the defendant as early as 9. 6. 1995. It is further observed by the court below that the ex parte decree was passed on 17. 6. 1996 and again on 22. 1. 1997 the ex parte decree was set aside on the application being filed by the petitioner/defendant. THEreafter, the case had been adjourned to 7. 2. 1997 for the trial and at that stage, the instant petition had been filed. This order is challenged in the revision before this Court.