IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 04 .12.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.PD.No.3672 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Sundaramoorthy ... Petitioner Vs M.C.Kalaithangam ... Respondent This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 17.9.2008 made in I.A.No.10215 of 2008 in O.S.No.4341 of 1994 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Sampath for Mr.K.Manimaran For respondent : Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan O R D E R
The revision petitioner/petitioner/first defendant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the orders dated 17.9.2008 in I.A.No.10215 of 2008 in O.S.No.4341 of 1994 passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/first defendant under Section 151 of CPC praying the Court to pass an order to send Exs A24 and A25 to the Forensic Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai -05 for the purpose of verification of the signatures in the said documents of Mr.Sachidanandam and Mr.Balasubramaniam and to file a report.
2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.10215 of 2008 has inter alia observed that ‘when the respondent/plaintiff is prepared to examine the witnesses mentioned in Exs A24 and A25, there is no need to send for those documents before the Court and to send the same for forensic examination and resultantly dismissed the said application.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant submits that the order of the trial Court in dismissing the I.A.No.10215 of 2008 is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law and that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that in the main suit the relief prayed for specific performance which is a discretionary relief and that P.W.1 is in the process of cross examination and therefore necessary questions will have to be put about the criminal proceedings initiated against him on the directions of this Court and if the report of the expert is proved in regard to the documents that have been forged, then it will speak about the character and conduct of the respondent/plaintiff and this aspect of the matter has not taken note of by the Court and therefore prays for allowing the civil revision in the interest of justice.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that Exs A24 and A25 are not the documents of the revision petitioner/first defendant and those documents pertain to the tenant and when he vacated the house, after receiving the amount, these documents have come into existence and the civil revision petitioner/first defendant is not at all connected with these documents and further the respondent/plaintiff is prepared to produced the witnesses to speak about the signatures found in Exs A24 and A25 and therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
5. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and noticed their contentions.
6. In view of the fact that the revision petitioner/first defendant is not connected with Exs A24 and A25 and since these documents relate to the tenant, when he vacated the house, after receiving the amount and inasmuch as the respondent/plaintiff is willing to examine the witnesses, who affixed their signatures in Exs A24 and A25,this Court is not inclined to allow the revision petition in the interests of justice and in that view of the matter, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed .
7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The order passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.10215 of 2008 in O.S.No.4341 of 1994 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.
sg
To The IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai