ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the Fair and Decree order made in I.A.No.539 of 2018 in O.S.No.454 of

2018, on the file of the learned Sub Court, Lalgudi, dated 29.03.2019.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The respondent/plaintiff had filed a money suit for recovery of a sum of 4,97,600/- along with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the realisation of the said amount. The suit has been filed on the strength of a Pro-note alleged to have been executed by the petitioners/defendants, dated 25.09.2013. The original promissory note was filed along with the plaint as Document No.1. The petitioners/defendants had denied the borrowing money from the plaintiff and also denied the execution of the alleged promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, at the time. Thereby, the respondent/plaintiff, in order to prove that the petitioners/defendants had executed the promissory note, had filed a petition in I.A.No.539 in O.S.No.454 of 2018 before the Sub Court, Lalgudi, under Order 11 Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of CPC to produce the original sale deeds (Document Nos.1196/2012, 465/2013 and 3392/2015) by the petitioners/defendants and compare the signatures found in the original sale deeds with the pro-note to find out the truth about the signatures of the petitioners/defendants in the pro-note. The petitioners/defendants had filed a counter resisting the same. The trial Court allowed the petition with costs and had directed the petitioners/defendants to produce the original documents bearing Document Nos.1196/2012, 465/2013 and 3392/2015 before the trial Court on or before 10.04.2019. Against which, the present revision has been filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the trial Court has erred in allowing the application. There is no requirement for the trial Court to compel the petitioners to produce those documents before the trial Court for comparison and thereby, he would seek to set aside the order.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, perused the impugned order and the documents filed along with the revision petition.

5.The respondent/plaintiff has filed the money suit seeking for recovery of money, based on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the petitioners/defendants on 25.09.2013. It is the specific defence of the petitioners/defendants that they have not executed such a promissory note. Hence, the burden is on the respondent/plaintiff to prove that the pro-note has been executed by the petitioners/defendants. In such circumstances, he has filed the petition seeking for a direction to the petitioners/defendants to produce the documents so as to compare the signatures of the petitioners/defendants in the sale deed with the pro-note to prove his case. The trial Court finding that the burden is on the respondent/plaintiff had rightly allowed the petition. There is no infirmity or error in the order passed by the trial Court. The documents mentioned which have been directed by the trial Court to be produced relating to the period before and after date of the pro-note are very much required for comparison. The revision petition has no merits and it is dismissed.

6.At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the documents are the original documents and they are required for availing loans and other purposes and they have to be returned to the petitioners after comparison of signatures and obtaining of the expert opinion. Further, it is necessary that they should be kept in safe custody and he would pray that the direction may be issued to the trial court to return those documents to the petitioners, once the expert opinion is obtained.

7.In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

However, the trial Court is directed to return the original documents to the petitioners after obtaining the expert opinion. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneou