had not given any promissory note to the respondent and that the suit pronote is a forged one and the claim of the respondent in the suit is illegal. According to the first defendant, he used to sign only as T.Jothi but in the alleged pro-note, it is found as M.Jothi. Since the suit pro-note is a vital document to prove their case, they filed the instant Interlocutory Location praying to send the alleged suit promissory note Ex.A.1 to compare the alleged signature of the first petitioner in the promissory note with the admitted signatures of the first petitioner and thumb impression for expert's opinion from the Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai. However, trial Court, without appreciating the facts and contentions of the revision petitioners, came to the conclusion that the instant Application was filed with a view to protract the proceedings, which cannot be countenanced. Ultimately, the learned counsel has contended that the revision petitioners must be given an opportunity to prove their case by sending Ex.A.1 promissory note to the Forensic Sciences Department for getting expert's opinion. Therefore, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would pray that the Civil Revision Petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the Trial Court.
