CRP No. 3932 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP No. 3932 of 2025 and CMP No. 20621 of 2025 1. R. Nandakumar Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Rajkumar Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 09.04.2025 made in IA No.352 of 2022 in OS No.89 of 2020 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Udumalpet by allowing this CRP. For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.E.Pratap For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Palanimuthu ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the IV Additional District Court, Udumalpet, in I.A. No. 352 of 2022 in O.S. No. 89 of 2020. 2. In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner/defendant, seeking to send the impugned documents, namely two suit promissory notes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3932 of 2025 dated 15.06.2017 and 03.08.2017, along with petitioner's admitted signatures in the public documents for the relevant period to handwriting experts of the Forensic Department of Tamil Nadu Police for expert opinion, has been dismissed.

3. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 89 of 2020 and the respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. The suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff, seeking for recovery of money based on two promissory notes dated 15.06.2017 and 03.08.2017, which are filed as suit documents along with the plaint. 4. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, has dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground that the suit is pending from 2020 onwards and the petitioner, without filing any original documents (contemporaneous documents), has filed the petition, seeking for comparison of the signatures found in the suit promissory notes with the contemporaneous documents and obtain a report from the expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 5. The petitioner, who claims that the suit promissory notes dated 15.06.2017 and 03.08.2017 are fabricated and forged documents, ought to have produced original documents of the petitioner/defendant, which are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3932 of 2025 contemporaneous to the suit promissory notes dated 15.06.2017 and 03.08.2017 to establish his contention that the suit promissory notes are forged and fabricated documents. Having failed to do so, the trial court has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application on the ground that the petitioner did not produce original documents, which are contemporaneous to the suit promissory notes dated 15.06.2017 and 03.08.2017.

6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that I.A. No. 1 of 2025 filed by the petitioner under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice to send for the original sale deed, standing in the name of the petitioner/defendant for the purpose of comparison of the signatures to that of the suit promissory notes, was dismissed on 09.04.2025. But the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner/defendant in this Civil Revision Petition. The said fact is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant. 7. When the petitioner has not produced any original document, which contains the petitioner's signature, and which is contemporaneous to the suit promissory notes, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the petitioner's application through the impugned order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3932 of 2025 8. This Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the other application filed by the petitioner in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice, seeking to send for the original sale deeds, which contain the petitioner's original signature, was also dismissed on the same date of the impugned order, that is on 09.04.2025. But admittedly, the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition.

9. This Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20-07-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ab https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3932 of 2025 To The IV Additional District Court, Udumalpet. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3932 of 2025 ABDUL QUDDHOSE J. ab CRP No. 3932 of 2025 and CMP No. 20621 of 2025 20-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No. 3932 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP No. 3932 of 2025 and CMP No. 20621 of 2025 1. R. Nandakumar Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Rajkumar Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 09.04.2025 made in IA No.352 of 2022 in OS No.89 of 2020 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Udumalpet by allowing this CRP. For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.E.Pratap For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Palanimuthu ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the IV Additional District Court, Udumalpet, in I.A. No. 352 of 2022 in O.S. No. 89 of 2020. 2. In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner/defendant, seeking to send the impugned documents, namely two suit promissory notes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3932 of 2025 dated 15.06.2017 and 03.08.2017, along with petitioner's admitted signatures in the public documents for the relevant period to handwriting experts of the Forensic Department of Tamil Nadu Police for expert opinion, has been dismissed.

3. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 89 of 2020 and the respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. The suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff, seeking for recovery of money based on two promissory notes dated 15.06.2017 and 03.08.2017, which are filed as suit documents along with the plaint. 4. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, has dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground that the suit is pending from 2020 onwards and the petitioner, without filing any original documents (contemporaneous documents), has filed the petition, seeking for comparison of the signatures found in the suit promissory notes with the contemporaneous documents and obtain a report from the expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 5. The petitioner, who claims that the suit promissory notes dated 15.06.2017 and 03.08.2017 are fabricated and forged documents, ought to have produced original documents of the petitioner/defendant, which are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3932 of 2025 contemporaneous to the suit promissory notes dated 15.06.2017 and 03.08.2017 to establish his contention that the suit promissory notes are forged and fabricated documents. Having failed to do so, the trial court has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application on the ground that the petitioner did not produce original documents, which are contemporaneous to the suit promissory notes dated 15.06.2017 and 03.08.2017.

6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that I.A. No. 1 of 2025 filed by the petitioner under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice to send for the original sale deed, standing in the name of the petitioner/defendant for the purpose of comparison of the signatures to that of the suit promissory notes, was dismissed on 09.04.2025. But the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner/defendant in this Civil Revision Petition. The said fact is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant. 7. When the petitioner has not produced any original document, which contains the petitioner's signature, and which is contemporaneous to the suit promissory notes, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the petitioner's application through the impugned order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3932 of 2025 8. This Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the other application filed by the petitioner in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice, seeking to send for the original sale deeds, which contain the petitioner's original signature, was also dismissed on the same date of the impugned order, that is on 09.04.2025. But admittedly, the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition.

9. This Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20-07-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ab https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3932 of 2025 To The IV Additional District Court, Udumalpet. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3932 of 2025 ABDUL QUDDHOSE J. ab CRP No. 3932 of 2025 and CMP No. 20621 of 2025 20-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis