COMMON ORDER

All these three appeals arise out of the connected matters between the same parties and as such, they are taken up for disposal by this common order. When the appeals came up for hearing before this Court on 13.12.2022, Mr.R.Gokulakrishnan, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants, undertook to file vakalat/memo appearance and at his request, fresh notice was also ordered. Thereafter, when the matter came up for hearing on 19.01.2023, there was no representation for the appellants and today also when the matter came up for hearing there is no representation. As such, this Court proceeded to consider the materials on record and decide the appeals on merits.

2. The factual background leading to the filing of these appeals as hereunder. Totally three suits, for recovery of money arising out of promissory notes, were filed against one Ramathal. The said Ramathal died pending suits and her legal heirs, which includes the present appellant herein, were brought on record as defendants in the said suits.

3. It is the contention of the defendants in the suits that the signature of the said Ramathal itself was forged in the promissory note. While so, three Transfer Original Petitions were filed before the District Judge, Tiruppur, in CMP.Nos.564, 565 & 566 of 2012. When summons were served on the legal heirs including the appellants, they engaged one Advocate by name Mr.Udhayakumar to file vakalat. However, to their shock and surprise, the counsel informed that already one Advocate by name Mr.N.V.Giri, had entered appearance. The appellant and the other four persons did not sign such vakalat and the vakalat is a forged one. Therefore, three applications were filed under Section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure to forward the complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate in respect of the offence of forgery committed by the concerned parties as well as the Advocates.

4. The trial Court, took up the applications conducted preliminary enquiry in the matter. In the preliminary enquiry one Mr.Senthil Kumar, the advocate who was appearing for the appellant and the other defendants in the suits deposed that he appeared for them in the suits. The Transfer Original Petitions were filed in Tiruppur. Since he did not attend Tiruppur Court he suggested the parties to engage one Mr.N.V.Giri, as counsel, who is known to him. Therefore, the appellant and the other five persons signed the vakalat before one Advocate Mr.Mahadevan and the vakalat was sent to Mr.N.V.Giri who then filed the vakalat. The Advocate Clerk of the said counsel also deposed about the said vakalat. Since the preliminary enquiry revealed that the complaint was incorrect, the learned Principal, District Judge, Tiruppur, by an order dated 05.03.2013 dismissed all the three applications. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are laid before this Court.

5. A perusal of the grounds of appeals, it is contended that the appellant had filed a separate written statement denying the allegations. It is again contended before this Court that no such vakalat has been signed. Mr.Sakthivel appeared in the Civil Suits. The Advocate Clerk has also clearly and categorically deposed that vakalat was executed and was sent to one Advocate Mr.N.V.Giri, to appear for the Transfer Original Petitions and when the finding of the trial Court is based on the materials available on record and on proper enquiry and application of mind, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to interfere with the order of the trial Court and accordingly these Criminal Appeals fail and are dismissed.

02.02.2023 Index : Yes Internet : Yes dna To The Principal District Judge, Tiruppur.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY., J.

dna

02.02.2023