K SUNDARARASU Vs. VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.353 of 2006 in O.S.No.89 of 2005 dated 02-08-2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri.

(2.) THE petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No.89 of 2005. THE suit was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for recovery of Rs.50,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner/defendant that the suit was filed on a forged pro-note. At that of time the petitioner had opened a Current Account in I.O.B., Thottiam. THErefore, I.A. No.353/2006 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant, under Rule 76 of Civil Procedure Code to send for the documents of specimen signature of the defendant's current account bearing No.40 in I.O.B., Thottiam for verification of the signature of the defendant in the pronote.

(3.) MR. K. Govindarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the plaintiff's chief examination, by filing the proof affidavit, was over the District Munsif has erred in dismissing the interlocutory application on the ground that the trial is yet to be commenced and that application is pre-mature. He further submitted that the petitioner has not executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and therefore the learned District Munsif ought to have given adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, by comparing the signatures in the promissory note with the admitted specimen signatures made in the account, opened with the Indian Overseas Bank, Thottiam.