K.Palani And Anoher v. C.Raja And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE A No. 1210 of 2026 IN CS NO. 27 OF 2024
1. K.Palani And Anoher S/o Late Mr.S.S.Krishnamoorthy, No.4/3,Agarwal Nagar, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Mathunga (e), Mumbai - 400 019.
2. Mr.Senthil Kumar Alias K.Senthil Raj S/o Late Mr.S.S.Krishnamoorthy, No.10, Bagavantham Street, T.Nagar Chennai - 600 017.
..Applicant(s) Vs
1. C.Raja Proprietor Of M/s Honest Builders, Having Office At No.13/17, Rear Building, 18th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083.
2. Mrs.K.Sridevi W/o Mr.Babu, No.59a, Padmavathy Nagar, Kamaraj Salai, Virugambakkam, Chennai - 600 092.
..Respondent(s) PRAYER: To mark as evidence on the side of the Applicants/1st and 2nd Defendants the additional documents as prayed for as listed in the schedule of the Judges Summons.
1/5
For Applicant(s):
M/S.Thomas T Jacob For Respondent(s):
Ms.R.Aparna.
ORDER
This application has been filed by the applicants / defendants 1 and 2 seeking permission to mark as evidence the additional documents listed in the schedule to the Judge's Summons.
2.
The documents sought to be produced are:
(i) the report dated 04.10.2024 issued by Truth Labs; and (ii) statement for Loan A/c.No.1283926000001167. 3.
The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants have already filed their written statement along with counter claim, wherein they have specifically pleaded that the plaint documents relied upon by the plaintiff are fabricated documents. It is submitted that the Truth Labs report was obtained subsequently and the same is necessary to substantiate the defence already raised by the applicants.
2/5
4.
The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent / plaintiff opposed the application by filing a common counter. It is contended that the Truth Labs report is issued by a private laboratory and that its veracity, authenticity and reliability are disputed. It is further contended that the report does not disclose sufficient particulars regarding the person who conducted the examination or his qualifications. In respect of the loan account statement, it is contended that the document is only a copy and does not bear the seal or signature of the bank. 5.
This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
6.
The written statement and counter claim of the applicants / defendants 1 and 2 have already been taken on record. The defence of the applicants is that the plaint documents are fabricated. The Truth Labs report is now sought to be relied upon only as a document in support of the said defence. 7.
At this stage, this Court is not deciding the genuineness, admissibility or evidentiary value of the said documents. The objections raised by the plaintiff regarding the private nature of the report, the competency of the expert, the mode 3/5
of proof, and the absence of authentication in the loan statement are matters to be considered at the time of marking and appreciation of evidence. 8.
In the result A.No.1210 of 2026 is allowed, subject to proof and relevancy. No costs.
12-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AY 4/5
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
AY A No. 1210 of 2026 IN CS NO. 27 OF 2024 12-06-2026 5/5