Allowed

Ramanathan v. Rajendran

Madras HC21 Aug 2024CRP/337/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the Trial Court's refusal to order forensic verification of signatures on a sale agreement. The High Court held that quoting an incorrect legal provision does not disentitle the petitioner from seeking forensic examination to establish the truth of signatures, set aside the impugned order, and directed expeditious completion of the trial

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing application for forensic verification set aside; Trial Court directed to complete trial expeditiously.

Ramanathan Vs Rajendran — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.PD.No.337 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.08.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶6

C.R.P.PD.No.337 of 2023

¶7

Ramanathan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs. Rajendran … Respondent

¶9

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

¶10

of India praying to set aside the fair order and decreetal order dated 18.08.2022 made in I.A.No.362 of 2021 in O.S.No.220 of 2019 of the learned Sub Court, Ulundurpet.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.I.John Arockiadas

¶12

For Respondent : No appearance

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant, aggrieved by the

¶15

order passed in I.A.No.362 of 2021 in O.S.No.220 of 2019 dated 18.08.2022, on the file of Sub Court, Ulundurpet.

¶16

Page No.1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.PD.No.337 of 2023

¶19

Heard Mr.John Arockiadas, learned counsel for the revision

¶20

petitioner. Despite the service of notice, none represented the respondent.

¶21

The defendant took out an application under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to send the suit sale agreement dated 13.04.2018 along with his vakalat and written statement filed in the suit for the forensic experts opinion as to the truthness of the signature contained in the sale agreement dated 13.04.2018 allegedly executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

¶22

The suit is filed by the plaintiff Rajendran against the defendant Ramanathan (Revision Petitioner) for the relief of specific performance and for other reliefs in respect of the suit properties namely 1) m/e/hP/rh;nt ? 232-1v

¶23

? 0/31/0 Vh;!;/ 2) m/e/hP/rh;nt ? 233-2 ? 0/23/0 Vh;!;/ 3) m/e/hP/rh;nt ? 235-4gp ? 0/25/0 Vh;!;/

¶24

The defence taken by the defendant before the Trial Court is that the defendant is not the owner of the suit schedule properties and it is not possible for him to have executed the suit sale agreement and he is not related Page No.2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P.PD.No.337 of 2023

¶27

to the suit schedule properties.

¶28

The plaintiff has filed counter in I.A.No.362 of 2021 stating that there is no provisions of law available to send the document for the forensic department and the provision of law mentioned is incorrect. Hence, he sought for dismissal of an application filed by the defendant.

¶29

The learned Trial Judge chose to dismiss the petition by holding that in the petition it is not specifically mentioned whether the document has to be sent to the Government Forensic Lab or Private Forensic Lab, and provision of law quoted is not correct and it has further been observed that when the suit was posted for trial the petition has been filed belatedly.

¶30

Law is well settled with wrong quoting of provision of law is not disentitle to the petitioner. When the defendant has taken a clear stand that the suit property is having sold out long before and he has not executed the suit sale agreement then filing of an application to send the suit sale agreement to forensic lab cannot be taken as otherwise. Therefore, in order to do full and effective justice to the parties in the suit, the petition stands Page No.3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

C.R.P.PD.No.337 of 2023

¶33

allowed and consequently, the impugned order stands set aside. There is no

¶34

order as to costs. The Trial Court shall complete the trial as expeditiously as

¶35

possible.

¶36

21.08.2024

¶37

vm Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶38

To:

¶39

1.Sub Court, Ulundurpet.

¶40

Page No.4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

C.R.P.PD.No.337 of 2023

¶43

R.KALAIMATHI,J.,

¶44

¶45

C.R.P.PD.No.337 of 2023

¶46

21.08.2024

¶47

Page No.5 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

C.R.P.PD.No.337 of 2023

¶50

Page No.6 of 6

¶51

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

Ramanathan v. Rajendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanathan v. Rajendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Nawaz Khan Vs T.R.Akthar Khan

Elumalai Vs Mohan

R.Mariappan Vs G.Mallikarjunan

P.Swaminathan Vs S.Eshwari

C.Jayagopal Vs v.Anandapadmanaban @ v.Anandan

Krishnan Vs Jaya