The revision petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant is challenging the order dated 08.06.2009 passed in I.A.No.86 of 2009 in O.S.No.157 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchengode.
2.The Suit O.S.No.157 of 2008 is filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the following reliefs:
a) directing the defendant herein to execute sale deed in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/- after receipt of the sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- free from all encumbrances, as per the agreement for sale dated 1.3.2001 and put in possession;
b) in default of such circumstances, this Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff at the costs of the defendant;
c) restraining the defendant herein from in any way and in any manner either alienating or encumbering the suit properties in favour of the third parties till the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by means of permanent injunction;
ALTERNATIVELY:-
a) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.3,27,833/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs.2,50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of payment;
b) creating charge over the suit properties for the due payment of the above said amount with future interest at 12% per annum and costs of the suit;
c) directing the defendant herein to pay the costs of the suit; and
d) granting such other relief or reliefs as this Honourable Court deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
3.The respondent/plaintiff relied upon an agreement of sale dated 01.03.2001, for the above stated relief. The written statement was filed on 28.02.2005 stating that the sale agreement is a forged and fabricated document. Thereafter, additional written statement was filed on 11.08.2008. In the additional written statement the defendant took his stand that one Ramachandran and Manoharan, a co-worker demanded him to affix his left thumb impression and put signature in one empty 10 rupees stamp paper, one revenue stamp affixed empty promissory note and a blank green sheet as a regular security for the subscriber of chit and assured that the same will be handed over to the subscriber after completion of the chit. Accordingly, defendant affixed his left thumb impression and put his signature. This according to the revision petitioner/defendant was given as a security as the subscriber of a chit on the promise that it will be returned to revision petitioner/defendant after the completion of the chit. It is a case of the revision petitioner/defendant that the signature and thumb impression on the empty documents were used to fabricate the sale agreement dated 01.03.2001. Therefore, the defendant filed I.A.No. 86 of 2009 to summon the District Registrar, Dharmapuri and to cause production of the Stamp Paper Account Register of the Dharmapuri Stamp Vendor Mr.P.Kumar, pertaining to the period, March 2001 which relates to the sale of stamp papers and to give oral evidence regarding the same. The said application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff.
4.The court below came to the conclusion that the defendant has to prove that he has not executed the sale agreement and that the same has been created by fabricating the empty stamp paper. In any event, the plea of the revision petitioner/defendant in the written statement is that the sale agreement is a forged and fabricated, whereas in the additional written statement the stand of defendant is that one Ramachandran and Manoharan, a co-worker demanded him to affix his left thumb impression and put signature in one empty ten rupees stamp paper, one revenue stamp affixed empty promissory note and a blank green sheet as a security as subscriber of a chit and assured that the same will be handed over to the subscriber after completion of the chit. In view of the inconsistent stand taken by the revision petitioner/defendant, the Court below felt that there is no need to send for the register maintained by the Stamp Vendor Mr.Kumar at that stage. Aggrieved thereby the present civil revision petition has been filed.
5.Counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.P.Valliappan contended that the case of the revision petitioner is that the suit agreement is forged and fabricated and therefore, the burden is on the revision petitioner to substantiate the same. Hence, the revision petitioner file the I.A.No.86 of 2009 praying to issue witness summons to the District Registrar, Dharmapuri to cause production of the Stamp paper Account Register of the Dharmapuri Stamp Vendor Mr.P.Kumar to prove that the stamp paper was not purchased in March 2001. he relied upon Order 16 Rule 3 CPC which reads as follows:
"(3)The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appeal in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list."
6.Mr.Sundaravathanam counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff pointed out that in order to get over the indefensible plea of forgery and the fabrication as stated in the first written statement, a new plea has been taken that the respondent/defendant signed in empty document i.e., the empty stamp paper, green paper etc., and that has been misused by the plaintiff. To fill up the lacuna in the case of the revision petitioner/defendant, the application has been filed to summon the District Registrar, Dharmapuri to cause production of the Stamp Paper Account Register of the Dharmapuri Stamp Vendor Mr.P.Kumar which will delay the adjudication of the suit. He, therefore, justified the order of the Court below dismissing the application stating that the application has been filed at a belated stage, at the fag end of the trial only to drag on the proceedings.
7.In the written statement is filed in the year of 2005. The plea of the revision petitioner/defendant is that the signature in the sale agreement is forged and it is fabricated. At that point of time, the revision petitioner/defendant did not choose to file list of witnesses required to be examined on his behalf. In the year 2009 a new plea has been taken by the revision petitioner/defendant stating that he has signed in the empty stamp paper and green paper with thumb impression which was misused later on to fabricate the suit document and that the respondent/plaintiff did not purchase the stamp paper in March 2001. The facts were well within his knowledge at the earliest point of time.
8.As to whether, the stamp paper was purchased by the revision petitioner/defendant or any other person may not be relevant at this point of time, since the revision petitioner/defendant has admitted that he has signed the stamp paper and does not deny the thumb impression. Hence, the evidence of the District Registrar is not necessary in this case. Likewise the Stamp Paper Account Register of the Dharmapuri Stamp Vendor Mr.P.Kumar is also not relevant at this point of time. Apparently, the application has been filed to delay the process of adjudication when the suit is posted for evidence of the revision petitioner/defendant. The Court below was justified and dismissing the application. There is not serious infirmity or illegality in the order under challenge.
9.Finding no merit the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission state. As requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the affidavit of under taking filed by the revision petitioner/defendant before this Court on 4th October 2009 stands withdrawn. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant and learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff prays for early disposal of the suit. Court below is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
vsm