Full Judgment
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 30.4.2009, passed by the Subordinate Court, Sankarankoil, in the unnumbered interlocutory application, in O.S.No.20 of 2005.
2. The petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition is the defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.20 of 2005, filed by the respondent. The respondent had filed the suit, in O.S.No.20 of 2005, for recovery of money, based on a promissory note, dated 22.3.2003, said to have been executed by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.262 of 2007, to compare the signatures in the promissory note, with the signature in the written statement and the vakalat filed in the suit. However, the trial Court had dismissed the said interlocutory application stating that such comparison cannot be made, as they are not contemporaneous documents.
3. A civil revision petition, in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.1449 of 2008, had been filed before this Court challenging the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing I.A.No.262 of 2007, in O.S.NO.20 of 2005. This Court, by its order, dated 21.11.2008, had held that it is a well settled position in law that the disputed signature can be compared with the admitted signature, which is contemporaneous in nature and not with the admitted signatures obtained subsequent to the date of the disputed signature.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another interlocutory application before the trial Court, to compare the signature in Ex.B-4, dated 10.10.2005, which is a bank fixed deposit receipt, with the signature in the promissory note, dated 22.3.2003. The trial Court had dismissed the interlocutory application, by an order, dated 30.4.2009, stating that the issue had already been decided by the High court, in its order, dated 21.11.2008, in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.1449 of 2008 and therefore, the subsequent interlocutory application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the subsequent interlocutory application filed by the petitioner had not been numbered. Therefore, no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to put forth his case to show that the signature, in Ex.B-4, dated 10.10.2005, can be compared with the disputed signature in the promissory note, dated 22.3.2003.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the issue had already been decided by this Court, by its order, dated 21.11.2008, made in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.1449 of 2008 and therefore, the subsequent interlocutory application, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable. In such circumstances, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the interlocutory application, filed by the petitioner.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available and in view of the decision of this Court, dated 21.11.2008, made in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.1449 of 2008, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to set aside the order of the trial Court, dated 30.4.2009, made in the unnumbered interlocutory application, filed by the petitioner.
8. It is not open to the petitioner to request the trial Court to compare the signature in Ex.B-4, dated 10.10.2005, with the disputed signatures in the promissory note, dated 22.3.2003, especially, in view of the decision rendered by this Court, on 21.11.2008, in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.1449 of 2008. As such, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.