Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2572/2026 of Ranaveeru Vs Sivagami on 22 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2572 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD010976372026}
Case QR
and
CMP(MD)No.12785 of 2026
Ranaveeru
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Sivagami
..Respondent
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair order dated 02.06.2026 in
I.A.No. 12 of 2026 in O.S.No. 453 of 2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Rajapalayam, Viruthunagar District by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jagadeeshwaran
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner against the order dated 02.06.2026 made in I.A.No.12 of 2026 in O.S.No.453 of 2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
2. The petitioner is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.453 of 2024 for recovery of money against the petitioner/defendant on the basis of two forged promissory notes, each allegedly executed on 19.09.2019 for a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. When the suit is pending, the petitioner filed I.A.No.12 of 2026 to send the disputed documents for forensic examination for comparison of the signatures as found in the pronote along with his signature contained in various documents. The petitioner states that the suit is filed for recovery of money by the respondent /plaintiff. The respondent had produced two pro notes and the petitioner admits his signature in one pro note and he has not signed in another pro note. Later, he came to understand that the signature is totally different in the pronote. In order to prove the signature contained in the another pro note, he wanted to send the same to an expert through an advocate and he requested the Court to compare the signature contained in the LPG cylinder connection book, driving license, passport and the document registered in his name vide Document No.3004 of 2025 to the forensic lab, Madurai and to submit a report. But the petition was dismissed by the trial Court, against which the present civil revision petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the second pronote signature has been forged by the respondent/plaintiff and it is necessary for him to send the same to the forensic lab.
5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent/plaintiff seriously contested the case by stating that the petitioner has already filed a petition with the same prayer to examine his signature in the pronote along with other documents. The petitioner had already filed a similar petition in IA.No.2 of 2023 and he himself withdrew the same and therefore, the petition was dismissed and now, he came forward with another petition for the very same relief, which is not maintainable. It is further stated that the petitioner has not produced any contemporary signature to compare the suit pronote for the same. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. After considering the documents and hearing the arguments on both sides, the trial Court held that the petitioner had already filed a similar application in IA.No.2 of 2023 and he himself endorsed as not pressed. Therefore, the petition was dismissed and when the matter was posted from 10.10.2025 to 03.01.2026 for examination of the defendant’s side evidence and since he has not appeared and adduced evidence, the same was closed. When the matter was now posted for argument, in order to drag on the proceedings, the petitioner filed another petition. The suit is pending for more than five years. The trial Court held that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court to dispose of the suit at the earliest, efforts are being taken to comply with such direction.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had already filed a similar petition in IA.No.2 of 2023 and he himself withdrawn the same and therefore, it was dismissed and even in this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner has not disclosed the same that he has already filed a similar petition that was not pressed by him. The petitioner, for the very same relief, filed another petition, which clearly shows that in order to protract the proceedings, that too, when the matter is posted for argument, the petitioner came forward with the present petition. Thus, the order passed by the trial Court needs no interference.
8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.09.2026 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM To The Subordinate Court, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.2572 of 2026 22.09.2026