Animadverting upon the order dated 22. 2008 passed in I.A.No.219 of 2008 in O.S.No.111 of 2006 by the District Munsif, Kangkeyam, Erode District, this revision petition is filed.

2. The epitome and short and long of the facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

The respondent filed the suit O.S.No.111 of 2006 for recovery of money, based on pro-note. The defendant, during the pendency of the suit, filed I.A.No.219 of 2008 seeking the relief of forwarding the photo copy of the impugned document along with the admitted signatures of the defendant to the expert for comparison and report. However, the lower Court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision petition is focussed on various grounds:

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would develop his argument, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, to the effect that it is a peculiar case in which the pro-note is purported to bear the signature of the petitioner/defendant as well as the left thumb impression; the petitioner/defendant himself, in order to prove the falsity of the responden