PUNITHAWATHI MANIYAM AND ORS. Vs. M.V. ARULJOTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the revision petitioners, the respondent has filed a suit in OS.No.62 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore for specific performance. In the aforesaid suit, the revision petitioner have filed an application in IA.No.146 of 2017 under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to appoint Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of sending the disputed signature found in Promissory note dated 02.11.2009 which has been marked as Ex.B4 to the Forensic Department of the State of Tamil Nadu, Mylapore, Chennai to obtain a report in respect of the disputed signature. The counter statement has been filed by the respondent. After hearing both the parties, the court below has considered and dismissed the said application by holding that the suit is filed in the year 2012 and after lapse of 5 years from the date of filing of the suit, the revision petitioners have come up with the petition to send Ex.B4 which is not the subject matter of the suit. Challenging the aforesaid order, the revision petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that if the said application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent and also the same will minimise the evidence in the said suit.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the court below has dismissed the said application on the ground the aforesaid document is not the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the orders passed by the court below. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.