Executing court compared the signatures and found the same true.

1. The civil revision petition has been filed by one Devaraju Padayachi being the decree holder in O.S.No. 791 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore against the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore in E.A.No. 768 of 1999 in E.P.No. 8 of 1998 in O.S.No. 791 of 1995.

2. Theimpugned order is to the effect that the entire decree debt has been discharged by payment of Rs.15,000 by the judgment debtor viz., Sivasankara Padayachi and consequent issue of receipt dated 26. 1999 by the decree holder.

3. Aggrieved against such order, the decree holder filed this revision petition on the ground that there was no necessity for out of Court settlement and there was no payment of Rs.15,000 by the judgment debtor to the decree holder on 26. 1999 and there was no such receipt issued by the decree holder in favour of the judgment debtor and the said receipt for Rs.15,000 dated 26. 1999 itself should be a forged one at the instance of the judgment debtor with the help of the scribe and others and that if really there was a settlement, there was no necessity for the counsel for the judgment debtor to make a representation on 30.6.1999 that the matter was going to be settled and that there was no necessity for the judgment debtor or his counsel to keep quiet without informing the out of Court settlement to the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore on the other subsequent two hearing dates and that there was no necessity on the part of the decree holder to have talk of settlement when the matter was pending be fore the Executing Court and that there was nothing to prevent the judgment debtor to get hand writing expert’s opinion through the Executing Court to confirm the truth of execution of the said receipt and that the Principal District Munsif need not have assumed the role of an expert and come to the conclusion as if the receipt in question was true and proved.

4. On careful perusal of the plea raised by the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor in the light of oral evidence of the judgment debtor Sivasankara Padayachi and his witnesses Sivanandham, Samidurai, Sanjeevi and also the evidence of the decree holder Devaraju and the documents marked as Exs. R1 to R7 on the side of the decree holder, I am able to see that the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore seems to have been carried away by the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 examined on the side of the judgment debtor and by comparison of the signatures of the decree holder in the disputed receipt and other documents and particularly Ex.R7. In this context, I wish to point out that the admission of the judgment debtor Sivasankara Padayachi in the cross examination is also relevant for the purpose of appreciating the truth and genuineness of the disputed receipt or otherwise. The judgment debtor Sivasankara Padayachi has admitted in the cross examination that E.P. was filed for Rs.18,426.35 and he appeared through counsel in the E.P. on 20.2.1998 and he filed objections on 9. 1998 and that after disposal of the appeal, his advocate was getting adjournments for payment of the decree amount and that since he did not pay the amount and appear in Court, arrest was ordered on 1. 1999 and that from 20.2.1998 till 1. 1999, he did not pay any amount before the Court and subsequently, he filed petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree and it was also allowed on 30.4.1999 and that both the parties were directed to be present before the Court on 30.6.1999, but, he did not appear before the Court on 30.6.1999 and so, the matter was adjourned to 7. 1999 and on that date also he did not appear before the Court and that even after the date of payment under disputed receipt there were two or three hearings and in those hearings also he did not inform about the out of Court settlement to the Court in person or through his counsel and so on.

5. The cumulative effect of all these admissions of the judgment debtor goes to show that if reall