C.R.P(MD)No.1004 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 24.04.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

C.R.P(MD)No.1004 of 2023

and

C.M.P(MD)No.4728 of 2023

Sankarpandi

...Petitioner/Petitioner/

Defendant

Vs.

Ganesan

... Respondent/Respondent/

Plaintiff

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated

20.02.2023 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in I.A.No.344 of 2017 in O.S.No.

498 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

For Petitioner

: Mr.D.Senthil

For M.P.Banu Prasath

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair

and decreetal order, dated 20.02.2023 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in

I.A.No.344 of 2017 in O.S.No.498 of 2016 on the file of the Additional

Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.1004 of 2023

2. The petitioner is the defendant before the Additional Sub Court,

Dindigul in O.S.No.498 of 2016 filed by the respondent. The respondent

has filed the above suit to recover a sum of Rs.5,84,666/- together with

interest on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. It appears that the petitioner was set ex parte on 24.04.2017. On

the same day, an order also came to be passed for attaching the property

of the petitioner. Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.1 of 2019

for sending the signature for examination by an expert after comparison

under Order 26 Rule 10 (a) of C.P.C. I.A.No.1 of 2019. I.A.No.1 of 2019

was dismissed by the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul with the following

observations:

8. On perusing the entire case records and the arguments

put forth on both side, this court finds that the Plaintiff has filed

the suit for recovery of amount by saying that the defendant

borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.05.2015 at the residence

of Plaintiff and for the due repayment of principal amount with

interest, the defendant executed suit pronate on 27.5.2015, but

the defendant filed his written statement by denying the receipt

of any amount from the Plaintift and any body and denied the

execution of pronote and specifically stated that the signature

found in the disputed pronote. pronote is not that of the

defendant and on the date of the pronote the petitioenr was at

Jammu and kashmir and not at Dindigul. Therefore this court

finds that before filing of the plaintiff issued legal notice to the

defendant and the same has been received by him and even after

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.1004 of 2023

receipt of legal notice, he failed to give reply to the legal notice.

Further though the defendant was worked at Jammu and

Kashmir there are possibilities for him to visit to his native

place on leave or long vacation. Further the plaintiff is having

night to adduce Oral and documentary evidence to prove his

case and at that time, the defendant can cross examine the

plaintiff side witnesses to disprove the case of the Plaintiff and

thereafter the defendant is having lot of chances to prove that on

the date of alleged pronote, he was not in Dindigul and only

after that he is entitled to send the document for comparison of

his signature, hence this Parition filed at this stage is

premature. Further by giving liberty to rhe Petitioner/

Defendant to file this kind of Petition with admitted document at

the appropriate time, this petition can be dismissed as

premature.

9.In the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

4. The petitioner has secured an interim order against the aforesaid

order and further stayed the proceedings in O.S.No.498 of 2016 filed by

the respondent by an order, dated 25.04.2022. Meanwhile, the petitioner

had also filed I.A.No.344 of 2017 to raise the order of attachment. The

application filed for raising the judgment was dismissed for non-

pros