C.R.Ps., PRAYER (in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1576 of 2017): Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records in pertaining to the order, made in I.A.No.391 of 2017 in O.S.No.12 of 2009, dated 07.08.2017, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Manapparai.
PRAYER (in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1577 of 2017): Civil Revision Petition is filed, under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records in pertaining to the order, made in I.A.No.392 of 2017 in O.S.No.12 of 2009, dated 07.08.2017, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Manapparai.
!For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan (in both C.R.Ps) ^For Respondent:
:COMMON ORDER The petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.12 of 2009 has laid the present civil revision petitions impugning the orders of the Court below in dismissing the applications preferred by him to receive certain documents and to send the same to the expert for comparison of the signatures found in the documents with that of the signatures found in the sale agreement marked as Ex.A1.
2. The suit has been laid by the respondent / plaintiff for specific performance and the petitioner / defendant has taken a plea that the sale agreement is a concocted document and not executed by him. It is found that the suit had been laid in the year 2009. If really the petitioner / defendant is interested in establishing his defence, as rightly pointed out by the Court below, the petitioner / defendant would have endeavoured to file necessary application with reference to the same for comparison of the signatures found in the disputed document with that of the signatures found in the admitted documents by an expert at the earliest. It is found that the petitioner / defendant did not endeavour to do so for the reasons best known to him.
3. It is further seen that the parties, on the basis of the pleadings set out by them, went for trial and the respondent / plaintiff has examined witnesses and closed his side and thereafter, it is found that the petitioner / defendant has also examined witnesses three in number and closed his side. Thereafter, when the matter stood adjourned for arguments, it is found that at that stage of the matter, the above applications have come to be levelled by the petitioner / defendant for comparison of the signatures found in the disputed documents with that of the signatures found in the documents projected by the petitioner / defendant.
4. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, finding that the present applications have been laid by the petitioner / defendant only to delay the suit proceedings one way or the other and the petitioner / defendant having not evinced interest to establish his defence right from 2009 onwards and also considering the conduct of the petitioner / defendant, had dismissed the applications preferred by him.
5. Considering the above position and also the reasons given by the Trial Court, I do not find any error or mistake in the impugned order of the Court below. The applications, as rightly determined by the Court below, had been laid only to delay the suit proceedings endlessly and in such view of the matter, there is no merit in the applications preferred by the petitioner / defendant. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the Court below does not call for any interference from this Court.
6. Resultantly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Principal District Munsif, Manapparai.
.