Dismissed

J.Jesisantharani v. Pandiyarajan

Madras HC29 Aug 2025CRP(MD)/2379/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against dismissal of an application under Order XXVI CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to forward documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory for signature comparison in a money recovery suit. Revision dismissed, with liberty to file a fresh application if a contemporary registered document with more than five admitted signatures predating the cheque is available.

What the court decided

AI extract

J.Jesisantharani Vs Pandiyarajan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.2379 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.2379 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD).No.14272 of 2025

J.Jesisantharani

...Petitioner

Vs.

Pandiyarajan

...Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the Court of the Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.551 of 2023 on 19.07.2025 and allow this Civil Revision Petition.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothi Basu * * * * *

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal

¶16

order passed by the Court of the Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.551 of 2023 on 19.07.2025.

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.(MD)No.2379 of 2025

¶20

The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.551 of 2023 before the

¶21

learned Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District, seeking recovery of money against the petitioner. Pending the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10(A) CPC, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to receive certain documents and forward the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for obtaining expert opinion. The trial Court, by order dated 19.07.2025, dismissed the said application on the ground that the documents sought to be produced for comparison with Ex.A2 promissory note were not qualified documents, since the admitted documents pertain to a period subsequent to the date of Ex.A2 cheque. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not borrowed any amount from the respondent and that the signature found in the cheque is a forged one. He further submitted that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application, if any contemporary document prior to the cheque date is available, namely, a registered document containing more than five admitted signatures of the petitioner.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P.(MD)No.2379 of 2025

¶26

Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the respondent,

¶27

notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

¶28

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However,

¶29

liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the trial Court, if he is in possession of any contemporary document prior to the date of the cheque, containing more than five admitted signatures in a registered document. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

29.08.2025

¶31

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No TSG To

¶32

1.The Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section,

¶33

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

¶36

C.R.P.(MD)No.2379 of 2025

¶37

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶38

TSG

¶39

C.R.P.(MD)No.2379 of 2025

¶40

29.08.2025

¶41

4/4

¶42

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

J.Jesisantharani v. Pandiyarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

J.Jesisantharani v. Pandiyarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Mallika Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

AnbuRajakumari Vs Ravi Gnanadhas

Arumugam Vs The Principal Chief Engineer

Krishnan Vs Madathiammal (Died) 1. Sami

Sundari Vs The District Collector

Kavitha P Vs The State of Tamil Nadu