1. The arguments advanced on both sides are heard.

2. The plaintiffs in the original suit O.S.No.484 of 2010 pending on the file of District Munsif Court, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District is the petitioner in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He has filed the suit against the respondent/ defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/- plus interest based on a promissory note. The suit is being contested by the respondent/defendant on the basis of his plea that under some other pretext, pronotes were obtained by the revision petitioner/plaintiff from the respondent / defendant, who was a subordinate of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, and other subordinates and that using one such pronote, the petitioner/plaintiff, after his retirement, has chosen to file the above said suit against the respondent herein/defendant. In an attempt to show that the petitioner/plaintiff could not have lent the amount, the respondent herein/defendant wanted to rely on the income tax returns of the revision petitioner/plaintiff relating to the financial year in which the amount was claimed to have been lent.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent also cl