EZHILMARAN Vs. MICHAEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the revision petitioner, the respondent has filed a suit in OS.No. 1 of 2016 for recovery of money on the basis of alleged promissory note executed by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner denied the execution of alleged promissory note. Therefore, the revision petitioner filed an application in IA.No. 53 of 2016 and send the document for comparison of signature of the revision petitioner for expert opinion. The aforesaid application was allowed and the revision petitioner was directed to submit the document singed by him during the relevant period within 15 days. But the revision petitioner failed to comply with the condition of the order of the court below. Therefore, the revision petitioner filed the present application to send the cheques issued to one, Saravanan on 14.11.2012 and 16.11.2012 of the City Union Bank, Ariyalur and the stating the reasons that the revision petitioner has not produced the same within the stipulated time and after lapse of stipulated period, the revision petitioner has come with the instant petition. However, the revision petitioner has stated that after sincere efforts, he found the documents with the signature during the period mentioned by the court. The court below has dismissed the said application by holding that no sufficient cause has been assigned by the revision petitioner. Hence, the revision petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that if the said application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the materials available on record.