Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1517 (MAD)

S. Seshkumar v. Jayasundari

2022-06-17

S.KANNAMMAL

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal in I.A.No.526 of 2016 in O.S.No.389 of 2014, dated 08.08.2019 passed by Principal Subordinate Court at Virudhachalam.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 08.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.526 of 2016 in O.S.No.389 of 2014 by the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Virdhachalam, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking to appoint the Advocate Commissioner and to send the suit document for finger print expert opinion and for obtaining report. 2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff and the petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.389 of 2014 filed by the respondent for recovery of money from the petitioner based on promissory notes dated 08.01.2012 and 26.02.2012. The petitioner herein in his written statement has stated that he never executed the alleged promissory notes and denied the signature in the promissory notes. To prove the genuineness of the said promissory notes, the petitioner herein filed petition to send the promissory notes for expert's opinion. By order dated 08.08.2019 the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Questioning the same, the petitioner/defendant has filed the present Revision Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had never executed the alleged promissory notes and hence to prove the genuineness of the promissory notes he filed petition to send the documents for the fingerprint expert opinion, pertaining to the alleged signatures in Exs.A1 to A3 and also to determine the age of the document, ink and whereas the trial Court without considering the petitioner's prayer, erroneously dismissed the application and the petitioner herein sought for setting aside the dismissal order by allowing the Civil Revision Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that having executed the promissory notes, the petitioner herein filed this vexatious petition. It is submitted that in the above suit, the petitioner has filed detailed written statement and after framing of issues the suit was posted for trial and after examination of witnesses and marking of documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 was over, the petitioner very belatedly filed the vexatious petition to prove the age and nature of the signature and the same was rightly dismissed by the trial Court which needs no interference by this Court. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that the petitioner entered appearance on 17.12.2014, the matter was adjourned on several hearings for settlement and when there was no possibility for settlement on 17.12.2015. Issues were framed and posted for trial on 19.01.2016. It is further submitted on 07.06.2016, P.W.1 was examined and posted for cross-examination of P.W.1 and on 29.09.2016, P.W.2 to P.W.4 were examined and when the matter was posted for cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 4 the petitioner herein filed the vexatious petition for sending the promissory notes for expert opinion which is not maintainable and on that ground also the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. 6. On perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner does not know the respondent herein and the petitioner obtained loan for Rs.50,000/- on 04.06.2004 and Rs.20,000/- on 23.08.2004 from one P.Jothi and for that the petitioner signed in two blank promissory notes. It is also stated that since P.Jothi threatened the petitioner that she would fill with any amount in the blank promissory notes and claim, the petitioner herein again signed in two other blank promissory notes and the said Jothi torn the old two promissory notes. It is further stated that when the dispute arose with regard to the interest, the said Jothi forged the signature of the petitioner in blank promissory notes and made the plaintiff who is the deceased brother's wife to file the vexatious suit. The petitioner did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff. 7. Though the written statement was filed in the year 2014 itself with the above said averments the petitioner has not taken any steps to send the promissory notes for expert opinion, at the earlier point and filed the same in the year 2016. Hence as submitted by the respondent the petitioner has filed such a vexatious petition only to drag on the proceedings and to harass the respondent. 8. The trial Court after discussing the above, rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the trial Court and this Court does not find any infirmity and the Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal. 9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.