Animadverting upon the order dated 09.01.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam in I.A.No.1666 of 2006 in O.S.No.399 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. A "resume" of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

The revision petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.399 of 2006 based on the suit agreement to sell. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.1666 of 2006 was filed seeking to compare the signature of the first respondent in Ex.A1 with that of his vakalat and written statement with the help of handwriting expert. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that the lower Court misdirected itself and simply found that comparison of the disputed signature should not be made with the signatures made in the vakalat and written statement. He would also invite the attention of this Court to th