O R D E R

These Civil Revisions are directed against the orders passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2019 in O.S.No.50 of 2019, dated 24.02.2020 on the file of the District Munsif - Cum - Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppuvanam.

2. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondents / plaintiffs have filed the above suit in O.S.No.50 of 2019 for redemption of mortgage. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Palaniyandi Servai, husband of the first plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 to 6, who was the owner of the suit property had mortgaged the same to one Poomalai on 28.07.1982, that the said Poomalai had made over the mortgage to the defendant vide document dated 21.05.1986, that the said Palaniyandi Servai had received an additional amount of Rs.1,000/- from the defendant and executed a document on 21.05.1986 itself extending the period for five years, that subsequently Palaniyandi Servai had died on 27.07.2015 without redeeming the property and that therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit directing the defendant to receive the mortgage amount of Rs.4,500/- and to cancel the mortgage deed and hand over the suit property.

3. The defendant has admitted the made over document executed by the said Poomalai and also the document executed by the said Palaniyandi Servai extending the period for five years. But the defendant has taken a specific defence that subsequently, Palaniyandi Servai for himself and on behalf of his minor sons along with second plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit property to the defendant and entered into a sale agreement on 09.03.1988, that the defendant has paid the balance sale price of Rs.500/- to the Palaniyandi Servai, that though the Palaniyandi Servai has informed that he would execute the sale deed after his sons attain majority, he has not chosen to execute the sale deed, that the defendant has become the owner of the suit property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and that the plaintiffs have suppressed the sale agreement and filed the suit. When the suit was in part heard stage, the defendant has filed two applications, one in I.A.No.1 of 2019, under Section 151 CPC for getting the finger print of the second plaintiff in the presence of his counsel and the defendant and his counsel for comparison and the other application in I.A.No.2 of 2019 under Rule 75 of Civil Rules of Practice to send for the records relating to the sale agreement dated 09.03.1988, document No.361 / 1988 from the office of the Sub Registrar, Thirupuvanam, containing the finger print of the second plaintiff. The learned District Munsif, after enquiry, has passed the separate orders on 24.02.2020, dismissing both the applications. Aggrieved by the said orders, the defendant has come forward with the present revisions.

4. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that during the cross examination of the second plaintiff he denied the finger impression found in the sale agreement dated 09.03.1988, that the second plaintiff has also informed that he has no objection for giving his finger impression for sending the same for comparison and that therefore, the second plaintiff's finger print is to be taken in his presence and the counsel on either side and that the records relating to the sale agreement dated

09.03.1988 containing the finger print of the second plaintiff are to be sent for from the office of the Sub Registrar, Thirupuvanam.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the trial Court has decided erroneously that the sale agreement is not to help the suit, which is for mortgage redemption, that the sale agreement was very much necessary to decide the possession of the suit property, that Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act does not prevent the defendant from taking a plea in his defence to protect his possession over the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract even though the period of limitation for bringing