ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.5 of 2017, dated 31.08.2020 by the learned District Munsif, Nilakkottai, dismissing the application filed under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC, seeking orders directing the Sub-Registrar, Nilakkottai to produce the filing sheet in connection with the mortgaged deed executed by the petitioner and another in favour of Canara Bank, Pallapatti Branch.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred as per their ranking/status before the trial Court.

3. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent/plaintiff has laid the suit in O.S.No.5 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai to recover the amount with interest due on a promissory note, dated 12.12.2014 alleged to have been executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent.

4. The defendant has taken a specific defence in the written statement that he has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time nor executed any promissory note in her favour; that the signatures found in the suit promissory note are not that of his signatures, that himself and one Velkumar were running a grocery store as Nellai Maligai Store at Pallapatti jointly; that the defendant subsequently came to know that the said Velkumar had taken loans from various persons by giving promissory notes forging the signatures of the defendant; that the defendant has then lodged a complaint before the Ammayanaikanur Police and on enquiry, the said Velkumar had admitted the same and agreed to settle the loan amounts; that the said Velkumar in the panchayat has admitted that he had taken a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from one O.S.Onnappan by giving a promissory note forging the signature of the defendant, that he had agreed to repay the loan amount to the said Onnappan and the said Onnappan had also agreed for the same; that subsequently the said Velkumar has filed a petition in I.P.No.6 of 2016 to declare himself as an insolvent against 67 persons including the said Onnappan, that the said Onnappan had setup his close relative the plaintiff herein to file the above suit with the promissory note alleged to have been taken from the said Velkumar and that therefore, the defendant is not liable for the suit claim. More particularly, the defendant has also taken a stand in the written statement itself that in order to prove the suit promissory note does not contain his signature, is going to file an application for the signature examination at a later point of time.

5. It is not in dispute that the defendant has filed a petition in I.A.No.829 of 2018, seeking orders directing the Manager of Canara Bank Pallapatti, to produce the loan application containing the signatures of the defendant for the purpose of sending the document along with the disputed pronote to the expert for comparison and report; that after enquiry the said application was allowed on 22.01.2019 and that subsequently, the Bank Manager of the Canara Bank has informed that the document sought for i.e., is the loan document was not available with them. Thereafter, the defendant has come forward with the above application, seeking orders to direct the Sub-Registrar, Nilakkottai to produce the filing sheet of the mortgage deed executed by himself and his erstwhile partner Velkumar, while mortgaging their property. The learned District Munsif, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order on 31.08.2020, dismissing the said application. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the defendant has come forward with the present revision.

6. The reasons assigned by the learned District Munsif for dismissing the application are :

(i) The defendant has not furnished the particulars of the mortgage deed such as registration number, date, etc.;

(ii) The defendant has not even filed any application seeking permission to send the disputed document along with the document containing his admitted signature