Allowed

Chakri Chigurupati v. Spm Arts LLP and 5 others

Madras HC19 Jun 2024A/2356/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application by the first defendant to mark a forensic report as an additional document in a civil suit. The court held that while the application was filed belatedly after the closure of evidence and written submissions, marking the document would cause no prejudice to the plaintiff provided it is introduced through the expert. The application was allowed with costs.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; document to be marked through the expert; costs of Rs.10,000 to Chief Justice Relief Fund.

Chakri Chigurupati Vs Spm Arts LLP and 5 others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

A.No.2356 of 2024 in C.S.No.35 of 2021

¶2

P.VELMURUGAN, J.,

¶3

This application has been filed by the applicant/first defendant, seeking permission to mark the Forensic report as an additional document, pending disposal of the above suit.

¶4

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/first defendant that during trial, when the 1st respondent/plaintiff tried to mark Exs.P2, P3, P4, the applicant/first defendant raised objections and subsequently, the applicant/first defendant had filed an application in A.No.989 of 2023, seeking to refer the said documents for Forensic examination and the same was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 23.02.2023. Now, the report of the Forensic Department is obtained and hence, the present application is filed to mark the Forensic report as an additional document.

¶5

Learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that after completion of evidence, when the matter was posted before this Court for final arguments, the applicant/first defendant had filed the application in A.No.989 of 2023 seeking to refer the documents of the first respondent/plaintiff for Forensic examination. The abovesaid application was allowed, vide order dated

¶6

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

¶7

1/4

¶8

23.02.2023 and Forensic Analysis Report dated 28.08.2023 has also been filed along with report of the learned Advocate Commissioner.

¶9

He further submitted that the applicant/first defendant has not taken out

¶10

this application on the earlier occasion, ie., before completion of trial and before oral submissions, whereas, after filing the written submissions by the first respondent/plaintiff, now the applicant/first defendant has filed the present application belatedly. Hence, this application is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶12

Admittedly, pending trial, the applicant/first defendant has raised objection for marking of plaintiff's documents. Hence, the applicant/first defendant took out an application in A.No.989 of 2023 for referring the documents for Forensic Expert opinion and the same was allowed, vide order of this Court dated 23.02.2023. Subsequently, the documents were sent to Forensic Laboratory. Now, the Forensic Lab Analysis report is received and the same is on the file of this Court as an unmarked document. Hence, the applicant/first defendant has taken out the present application to mark the Forensic Expert opinion, as an additional document.

¶13

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

¶14

2/4

¶15

The applicant/first defendant has not filed any application immediately

¶16

soon after receipt of the Forensic Report by the Registry, whereas, the applicant/first defendant has filed the present application belatedly after the closure of evidence, completion of trial and filing of written submissions of the counsel. Since the document is only an expert opinion, and if the document ie., Forensic expert opinion is marked as an additional document, no prejudice would be caused to the first respondent/plaintiff. However, the document has to be marked only through the expert, who has given the opinion and he has to give evidence.

¶17

Under the above facts and circumstances, this application is allowed on

¶18

payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten thousand only]. The applicant is directed to pay the said costs to the credit of Chief Justice Relief Fund, on or before 25.06.2024.

¶19

List the matter on 26.06.2024, “for reporting compliance”.

¶20

19.06.2024

¶21

mfa

¶22

P.VELMURUGAN, J.,

¶23

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

¶24

3/4

¶25

mfa

¶26

A.No.2356 of 2024 in C.S.No.35 of 2021

¶27

19.06.2024

¶28

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

¶29

4/4

Chakri Chigurupati v. Spm Arts LLP and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakri Chigurupati v. Spm Arts LLP and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank Of India Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Sathya Jyothi Films Represented By Its Partner Vs Vela Ramamoorthy Kalalayam

Mr Dhanush K Raja Vs Vela Ramamoorthy, Kalalayam

M/S D.R.Raanka Bros., Vs Sri Sumangali Nagai Maaligai

Lyca Productions Private Limited Vs Vishal Krishna

N.Moorthy, S/o.Nallasevi Vs Nlc India Limited