CHETTIA GOUNDER @ CHETTIANNAN Vs. GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/Defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 14.12.2009 in I.A. No.305 of 2009 in O.S. No.376 of 2005 passed by the Learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode.

(2.) The Learned Additional District Munsif, while passing the order in I.A. No.305 of 2009 in O.S. No.376 of 2005 on 14.12.2009, has among other things categorically observed that the Petitioner (Revision Petitioner/Defendant) has not denied his signature in Ex.A1 pronote and further, he has not stated that in Ex.A1 pronote, the Respondent/ Plaintiff's signature is seen/found. Further, no explanation has been offered by the Petitioner (Revision Petitioner/Defendant) that the documents, which are sought to be summoned, contain the Respondent/Plaintiff's signature and it is not explained as to how the documents mentioned in the petition (whether it covers within the date mentioned therein) will help to prove the case of the Revision Petitioner/Defendant and also, the documents sought to be summoned are not disputed documents and consequently, dismissed the application without costs.

(3.) The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant submits that the trial Court passed the impugned order in I.A. No.305 of 2009 in O.S. No.376 of 2005 on 14.12.2009 against law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of case.