9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly, the very same petition has been filed. Hence, observation of the trial Court does not required any interference. In view of the representation made by the respondent, the trial Court can be proceeded without any interception and in view of the finding, the first respondent has nothing to say about the case and she has not remembered anything about the said documents cannot be marked. This civil revision petition is dismissed. - C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.2609 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)No.11448 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2018 - MRS. S.RAMATHILAGAM, J. For Petitioners : Mr.N.Balakrishnan For R1 :Mr.V.Singan ORDER This civil revision petition has been preferred against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.551 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the police and that, the said documents is also not related to the case. The trial Court, after observing the contentions raised by the petitioner for filing such petition to receive such a document under Order 8 Rule 3 and on perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, has found that the petition is not signed by the first defendant and also the signature that was placed by the petitioner in the open Court. The respondent also found to be a different one. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner itself is not found to be a genuine one sent by the first defendant. The trial Court has also contended that at the first instance, the Commissioner was appointed to examine the first defendant in I.A.No.500 of 2018 and the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fendant can be examined and the documents can be marked only when it relates to the second defendant. But no documents mentioned by the first defendant/petitioner to be marked through the second defendant. Hence, in view of the findings that the first defendant who is not in dispute to depose before the Court and the said documents can also not be marked through the second defendant. In view of the representation, the respondent argued that she has expressed serious objections against the suit in the year 2014. When the proceedings are conducted in the year 2010, there is a variation in the signature of the petitioner, where as, the trial Court has observed a difference of signature and believed all the documents especially, the very sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
