H AMALRAJ Vs. REGINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O. S. No. 973 of 1995 for a money decree on the basis of pro-note dated 29. 1. 1994, said to have been executed by the revision petitioner/defendant.

(2.) OF course, the suit was resisted by the revision petitioner/defendant that he had never executed any pro-note, much less, dated 29. 1. 1994. Under such circumstances, the revision petitioner took an application in I. A. No. 787 of 1994, seeking permission of the court below, namely, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, to send the suit pro-note dated 29. 1. 1994 for comparison by handwriting expert and for his report.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. J. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, expressed his apprehension that the revision petitioner is trying to drag the proceedings eventhough the trial had already been commenced.