16.It is the further contention that in the instant case though a decree in O.S.No.275 of 1990 dated 17.12.1991 stands in the name of Thiru.D.Dhandapani, learned Principal Sub Judge, Salem but signed by the Thiru.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem for learned Principal Sub Judge, Salem, the successor and that Thiru.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem cannot sign and Thiru.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem is not a successor to Thiru.D.Dhandapani viz., the learned Principal Sub Judge, Salem and when Thiru.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem has been on Casual Leave on 17.12.1991 as per the 'A' Diary extract of the Additional Sub Court, Salem, he cannot sign in the decree in Ex.R5, the decree in O.S.No.275 of 1990 and the same is not a valid one and preceding a decree there must be a judgment and there is no judgment in the instant case on 17.12.1991 in O.S.No.275 of 1990 and the 1st respondent has been duped and in law a Decree cannot come first and further the present case is a classic example where a learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem Thiru.P.Ramakrishnan has not been present in Court on 17.12.1991 (and that admit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document