1. Heard the arguments advanced on both sides.

2. This revision has been preferred against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur dated 16.06.2011, made in I.A.No.120 of 2011 in O.S.No.55 of 2009. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein against the revision petitioner for recovery of money due on the disputed promissory note dated 20.04.2007. The trial had began and the plaintiff's evidence was over. Thereafter, the defendant viz., the revision petitioner chose to file an interlocutory application praying for an order to send the disputed promissory note to a handwriting expert for comparison with the signatures of the revision petitioner/defendant found in vakalat and written statement. The said petition was resisted by the respondent herein/plaintiff contending that the said petition, filed at a belated stage, was nothing but an attempt to protract the case as long as possible. It was also contended that the signatures sought to be used for comparison with the disputed signature were not suitable for comparison as the same were made subsequent to the arisal of the dispute and that there was every possibility of the revision petitioner/defendant having disguised the signature in the vakalat and the written statement with the intention of having them compared with the signature found in the disputed promissory note.

3. In support of the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the petition was belated and it was a ruse for protracting the case, the respondent had also cited the past conduct of the revision petitioner/defendant paving the way for passing of an order setting him ex-parte for not filing written statement not once which came to be set aside on an application filed by the revision petitioner and again for the passing of an exparte decree which was also set aside on an application filed by him under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. The learned trial judge, upon hearing, accepted the above said contentions of the respondent/plaintiff and dismissed the application I.A.No.120 of 2011 in O.S.No.55 of 2009 with costs by order dated 16.06.2011. The interlocutory application filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed on all the three grounds viz., 1) it was belated; 2) it was a ruse for protracting the case; and 3) the documents containing the admitted signature were unfit for being compared with the disputed signature. The said order is impugned in the present revision.

4. Upon hearing both sides and after going through the impugned order and the materials produced in the form of typed set of papers, this Court is not able to find any defect or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. Admittedly, the application came to be filed after the trial had started and after the evidence on the side of the plaintiff came to an end. So the contention of the respondent that the application was belated has got to be accepted. On previous occasions, he suffered an order setting him ex-parte for not filing written statement and then suffered an order of ex-parte decree on his non-appearance. In fact, while filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order passed on the first occasion, the Court ought to have insisted upon filing a written statement. However, leniency was shown and the said petition came to be allowed and the same emboldened the petitioner/defendant to omit to file the written statement within the further time granted after the earlier ex-parte order was set aside. Even within the extended time, the petitioner/defendant did not file written statement and once again he suffered an order setting him ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed after conducting ex-parte trial. However, on that occasion also indulgence was shown and he was permitted to file written statement, when he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13. Thereafter, issues were framed, the suit was listed for trial and at last, the suit was taken up. Till the conclusion of the evidence on the side of the res