CRP/6200/2026 of Sivabackiam Vs Jayam Traders on 1 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 31.07.2026 passed in I.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2026 in O.S.No.2 of 2022 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Namakkal, Namakkal District, wherein the applications filed by the petitioners/defendants to reopen and to send the disputed cheques for expert opinion, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners/defendants and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. The respondents are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.2 of 2022 seeking for the relief of recovery of money along with interest. The petitioners/defendants took a stand in the written statement that there was no business transaction between the parties and the cheque that is relied upon by the respondents/plaintiffs is a forged and fabricated document.

4. The case was at the stage of final arguments and at that stage, I.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2026 in O.S.No.2 of 2022 came to be filed before the Court below for reopening the case and for sending the disputed cheque for expert opinion. The Court below dismissed both the applications mainly on the ground that earlier an application was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking for the same relief and same came to be rejected by the Court by an order dated 22.10.2025 and this order has become final. The other ground that was put against the respondents/plaintiffs is that the respondents/plaintiffs instead of calling for the records from the office of the Sub-Registrar with respect to the registration of the settlement deed, could have produced the original document dated 24.03.2021, which was registered as Document No.3825 of 2021. In view of the same, the Court below was not inclined to entertain the applications at the fag end of the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, these revisions have been filed before this Court.

5. The petitioners/defendants had earlier filed an application in I.A.No.7 of 2025 seeking for the same relief. The Court below dismissed this application on 22.10.2025 on the ground that the petitioners/defendants did not rely upon any contemporaneous documents that could be compared with the disputed cheques which were marked as Ex.A4 and A5. Therefore, there is no scope for sending the cheques for comparison to receive the expert opinion.

6. The present application has been filed on the ground that the disputed cheques can be compared with the document registered as Document No.3825 of 2021 and for this purpose, the relevant register can be summoned from the office of the Sub Registrar. The Court below held that if the document is available with the petitioners/defendants, the same could have been produced instead of calling for the register from the office of the Sub Registrar.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners/defendants submitted that the petitioners/defendants are in possession of the original settlement deed dated 24.03.2021 and that the said document can be sent along with the disputed cheques (Ex.A4 and Ex.A5) for comparison and for getting the opinion.

8. The earlier dismissal of I.A.No.7 of 2025 in O.S.No.2 of 2022 was only on the ground that the petitioners/defendants did not produce any contemporaneous document to be compared with the disputed cheques. Now the petitioners/defendants are specifically relying upon a registered document viz., settlement deed dated 24.03.2021 registered as Document No.3825 of 2021. Therefore, this original document can be directed to be produced by the petitioners/defendants and it can be sent along with the disputed documents [Ex.A4 and Ex.A5] by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. This opportunity must be given to the petitioners/defendants in order to enable the petitioners/defendants to prove their defence.

9. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order dated 31.07.2026 passed in I.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2026 in O.S.No.2 of 2022 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Namakkal, Namakkal District and the same is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to the petitioners/defendants to produce the original settlement deed dated 24.03.2021 before the Court below and the Court below shall appoint an Advocate Commissioner and send the document along with the disputed documents [Ex.A4 and Ex.A5] for comparison and for getting the expert opinion. The entire process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months and the suit in O.S.No.2 of 2022 shall be disposed of within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. These civil revision petitions are disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm/pss To The I Additional District Judge, Namakkal, Namakkal District.

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. gm/pss Civil Revision Petition Nos.6200 and 6202 of 2026 01-10-2026