1. Defendant is the Revision Petitioner in C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 2193 & 3169 of 2012. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner in C.R.P. (PD) No.2395 of 2012.

2. The Plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S. No.594 of 2003 for recovery of money on the basis of the pro-notes executed by the Defendant. In the Suit, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined another witness as PW2 and the Defendant also examined himself as DW1. At that stage, the Defendant filed Application under Section 154 of the Evidence Act for the issuance of summons to one Palanichamy as Court Witness and that Application was dismissed and against the same, C.R.P. (PD) No.3169 of 2012 was filed.

3. The Defendant also filed an Application to recall PW1 for further cross-examination and that Application was dismissed and against that C.R.P. (PD) No.3169 of 2012 was filed.

4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ Defendant that the Respondent/Plaintiff filed the Suit on the basis of six pro-notes dated 7.7.1997 alleged to have been executed by the Revision Petitioner/ Defendant and the Revision Petitioner has taken the defence that the pro-notes are fabricated and he borrowed