K S RAJA Vs. V SHANMUGASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant to set aside the the order dated 14.03.2008 made in I.A.No.944 of 2006 in O.S.No.62 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

(2.) THE defendant in O.S.No.62 of 2006 is the revision petitioner before this Court. THE suit in O.S.No.62 of 2006 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money on the basis of a pro-note dated 23.11.2003. Written statement has been filed by the petitioner/defendant and the suit is being contested. Pending suit an application in I.A.No.944 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner/defendant to permit the hand writing expert Mr.Manomani Raj, for taking photographs of the signature in the disputed promissory note and for collection of admitted signature for obtaining expert opinion. THE said application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. THE trial Court by order dated 14.03.2008 dismissed that application. Aggrieved by the same, the above civil revision petition has been filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is for recovery of money on the basis of a pro-note and the petitioner filed the written statement contending that the promissory note is a rank forgery and a fabricated document. Hence, he filed an application in I.A.No.944 of 2006 to send the disputed document to permit the hand writing expert Mr. Manonmani Raj for taking photographs of the signature in the disputed promissory note and for collection of admitted signatures for obtaining expert opinion. Though, the said application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff, the trial Court by order dated 14.03.2008 on a thorough misconception of facts and law dismissed that application. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant, the reasoning given by the trial Court is wrong and cannot be sustained in law, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.