Establishment of thumb impression validity in promissory note necessitates document production for evidential support.

ORDER

The present revision petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 11.01.2023 made in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.65 of 2021 on the file of Sub Court, Rasipuram.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also gone through the materials placed on record.

3. Though initially Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, subsequently he has reported that the parties have taken back the papers. Thereafter, notice was sent to the respondents and it is seen that, notice to the 1^st respondent alone was served and the respondents 2 to 5 have refused to receive the same. Therefore, this Court, by order dated 05.08.2025 has recorded the refusal by the respondents 2 to 5 as a proper service and posted the matter today under the caption 'for passing orders'.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money based on Promissory note executed by one C.Raja, who died even prior to the institution of suit and thereby necessitating the plaintiff to file a suit against his surviving legal heirs, namely, the mother/1^st defendant, who is the 1^st respondent herein, the wife and the children, who are the respondents 2 to 5 herein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would take me through the pleadings more specifically the written statement filed by the 1st respondent/mother independently and the other legal heirs by separate written statements, disputing the left thumb impression (in short 'LTI') of the said C.Raja in the promissory note.

6. In view of the said defence taken by the defendants, the petitioner has taken out an application in I.A.No.2 of 2022 under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC, seeking for a direction to the respondents to produce the registered partition deed bearing No.2730 of 2016 dated 26.09.2016 entered into amongst the family members. However, the respondents have denied that they have any such document which contains the LTI of the deceased C.Raja and the Trial court has also proceeded to dismiss the said application.

7. When the defendants have denied the LTI of the deceased C.Raja, it became necessary to the plaintiff to establish that the Promissory note contains only the LTI of the deceased C.Raja and only in order to establish the same, the petitioner has taken out the said application.

8. The petitioner has also filed the encumbrance certificate dated

21.04.2021 to evidence the fact that there is a Registered partition deed entered into between the family members on 26.09.2016, in which the deceased C.Raja is a signatory. Being a registered document, the signature/LTI of the deceased C.Raja would certainly be available in the said document.

9. In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside the impugned dismissal order passed by the Trial Court, in order to enable the plaintiff to establish the factun that the deceased C.Raja had affixed his Left thumb impression in the disputed Promissory note.

10. Accordingly, the order dated 11.01.2023 passed in I.A.No.2 of

2022 in O.S.No.65 of 2021 by the Sub Court, Rasipuram is set aside and the trial court is directed to call upon the respondents to produce the original registered partition deed bearing No.2730 of 2016 dated 26.09.2016 and upon production of the said partition deed, the trial court shall appoint a Commissioner to take the said original partition deed along with the disputed Promissory note dated 02.05.2018 for comparison by the Handwriting Expert.

11. In the event of the respondents not coming forward to produce the original partition deed, then it is open to the petitioner to file a separate application for summoning the