(Judgment of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDER, J)
1. This is an appeal preferred against the impugned judgement and order dated 11.07.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge. By virtue of the impugned judgement and order, the application being: A.No.4828 of 2015 has been dismissed.
2. The appellants/the original plaintiffs, who are represented by their power agent, one, Mr.S.Sivakumar, had filed the application for having an enquiry held based on the assertion that the signatures of defendant No.9, i.e., one, Mr.Gnanaprakasam, on the adoption memo were forged.
2.1. To be noted, the adoption memo, which is dated 24.07.2008 was signed by defendant Nos.7 to 10, whereby they adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No.6, one, Mrs.J.Parvathy, who has since then expired.
3. The record shows that in response to the application, the defendant No.9, filed a counter affidavit claiming the signature appended on the adoption memo was his signature. The learned Single Judge, taking into account this fact, as well as the fact that over a period of time the signature of defendant No.9, may have changed, dismissed the application.
4. The appellant Mr.Sivakumar, who appears for the appellants, says that the order is erroneous.
5. We perused the records and the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, according to us, there is no error in the order and the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected pending application shall stand closed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(R.S.A.,J.) (A.Q.,J.) 05.09.2017 Index : yes/no raja/vsm
RAJIV SHAKDER, J.
and ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
raja/vsm O.S.A.No.219 of 2017 05.09.2017