KRUPPA GOUNDER Vs. KUPPUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the order dated 24. 10. 2008, passed by the Subordinate judge, Bhavani in I. A. No. 293 of 2008 in o. S. No. 66 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: the respondent filed the suit O. S. No. 66 of 2007 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 06. 10. 2006. The defendant also entered appearance and filed written statement. During the pendency of the trial it appears I. A. No. 293 of 2008 was filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 10 (a)of CPC seeking the following relief: to appoint a handwriting and finger print expert, whose address is mentioned here-under as Commissioner to compare the petitioner's signature found in the Registered sale deed, dated 19. 03. 1984 Doc. No. 484/ 1984 with his signature found in the suit agreement of sale marked as Ex. Al to file a report to pass other suitable orders. " after hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the I. A.

(3.) BEING disconcerted and aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds, inter alia thus: the order of the lower Court is against law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case in view of the fact that earlier the revision petitioner/defendant was hoping that the plaintiff would take steps to obtain the handwriting expert's opinion relating to the purported signature of the defendant found in the agreement to sell as the defendant denied his signature; inasmuch as the plaintiff had not taken any steps, the defendant did choose to file such an application, but the lower Court failed to appreciate the same in proper perspectives.