Athimoolam Vs Govindaraj — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Athimoolam Vs Govindaraj — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed: permission granted to forward promissory notes Exs.A1 and A2 to the Forensic Science Department, Chennai, for handwriting expert opinion; Trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to hand over the documents; Expert Opinion to be obtained at the earliest with liberty to the petitioner/plaintiff to examine the Handwriting Expert on filing a requisite application; entire exercise to be completed within three months and the matter to be posted immediately on receipt of the Expert opinion from the Trial Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/plaintiff should be permitted, in the pending appeal, to send the promissory notes marked as Exs.A1 & A2 to a handwriting expert for obtaining expert opinion.

Court's answer

Finding the petitioner's plea reasonable and acceptable, and in order to have effective justice, the Court holds that the promissory notes executed under Exs.A1 and A2 must be forwarded to the Forensic Science Department, Chennai, for obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert, and orders the petition accordingly.

Ratio / Principle

Direction (i): the Trial Court shall appoint an Advocate Commissioner for handing over the relevant documents to the Forensic Department, Chennai.

Key takeaways

Direction (ii)-(iii): the Expert's Opinion is to be obtained at the earliest; on receipt of the Expert Opinion, the petitioner/plaintiff may examine the Handwriting Expert on filing a requisite application.ratio¶25
The exercise shall be completed within a period of three months, and the matter is to be posted immediately on receipt of the Expert opinion from the Trial Court.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (R. Kalaimathi, J.), 09.06.2026 — C.M.P.No.16262 of 2025 in pending appeal A.S.No.1027 of 2019: Allowed. In an appeal against the Trial Court's dismissal of his suit for failure to prove execution of promissory notes Exs.A1 and A2 and passing of consideration, the petitioner/plaintiff sought leave to send the notes to a handwriting expert. The defendant had denied execution pleading forgery, yet in cross-examination DW1 admitted the signatures of his mother and sister on Ex.A1. Holding the plea reasonable and acceptable, the Court ordered the notes forwarded to the Forensic Science Department, Chennai; directed the Trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to hand over the documents; required the Expert Opinion at the earliest with liberty to examine the expert on a requisite application; fixed a three-month period for completion; and directed immediate posting of the matter on receipt of the opinion. No statutes or precedents were cited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

C.M.P.No.16262 of 2025 in A.S.No.1027 of 2019

Athimoolam

..Petitioner

	Vs
raj		..Respondent
For Petitioner :	Mr.S.N.Subramani
For Respondent :	Mr.C.Shabeer Ahmed for Mr.N.Selvaraja.

Govindaraj

ORDER

This application has been taken out by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking permission of this Court to send Exs.A1 & A2, promissory notes to the handwriting expert for obtaining opinion.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

The learned for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court

observed that the plaintiff had not taken steps to obtain the opinion of a hand writing expert in respect of the promissory notes marked as Exs.A1 and A2

__________ Page1 of 4

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

and also held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of the said promissory notes and the passing of consideration.

The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and consequently dismissed the suit and, therefore, the present Application is liable to be dismissed.

During the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and one Ranganathan was examined as PW2. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of the promissory notes Exs.A1 and A2. The defendant had specifically denied the execution of the promissory notes and pleaded forgery. However, during the course of cross-examination, DW1 admitted the signatures of his mother and sister found in Ex.A1- Promissory Note.

In such circumstances, the plea of the petitioner is reasonable and acceptable and in order to have effective justice, this Court is of the view that the promissory notes executed under Exs.A1 and A2 have to be forwarded to the Forensic Science Department, Chennai, for obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert. Petition is ordered accordingly.

(i) The Trial Court shall appoint Advocate Commissioner for the purpose

of handing over the relevant documents to the Forensic Department, Chennai.

Page2 of 4

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

(ii) To obtain the Expert’s Opinion at the earliest.

(iii) On receipt of Expert Opinion, the petitioner/plaintiff may examine the

Handwriting Expert on filing requisite application.

This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months.

Post the matter immediately on receipt of the Expert opinion from the Trial Court.

09.06.2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No kmm

__________ Page3 of 4

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

R.KALAIMATHI, J.

kmm

C.M.P.No.16262 of 2025

in A.S.No.1027 of 2019

09.06.2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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