Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4291 (MAD)

M. G. Periasamy v. Muthusamy

2008-11-20

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 11.09.2007 in I.A.No.63 of 2007 in O.S.No.168 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani in allowing the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. The trial Court while allowing the I.A.No.63 of 2007 filed by the respondent/defendant praying permission of the Court to compare the signature of the defendant in pronote with that of the mortgage deed dated 22.08.1986, registered as Document No.1658/1986 by sending the same to the handwriting expert Tmt.C.V.Jayadevi, Advocate, Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert, Bangalore and to obtain report thereto. 3. In the written statement filed by the respondent/defendant at para 6, it is inter alia averred that the petitioner/plaintiff has been conducting auction chit and in the 11th auction the defendant has bid a sum of Rs.68,000/-in 2001 and the revision petitioner/plaintiff has paid only a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards the said auction amount of Rs.68,000/- and at that time the revision petitioner/plaintiff has obtained the signature of the respondent/defendant in the blank pronote and also the thump impression etc. 4. It is significant to point out that the suit pronote is dated 15.04.2005 and the execution of the pronote is denied by the respondent/ defendant when a specific plea has been taken by the respondent/ defendant in the written statement at para 6 to the effect that he has affixed his signature in the blank pronote and his thump impression in the year 2001. It is not known as to why the respondent/defendant is asking for a comparison of the document viz., mortgage deed dated 22.08.1986 etc. 5. On a perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the averments made by the respondent/defendant in the written statement and has allowed the interlocutory application not appreciating the real controversies of the suit in a proper perspective and on this short ground alone without going into the merits of the matter in detail, this Court sets aside the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.63 of 2007 in the interest of justice and resultantly, the civil revision petition is allowed. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.63 of 2007 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to restore the I.A.No.63 of 2007 to its file and to deal with the matter afresh, after ascertaining the real controversies of the suit and to proceed further in the manner known to law. Liberty is given to the parties to raise all the factual/legal contentions before the trial Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.