Paramanandham v. M.Thambi Raj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.No.30493 of 2025 Paramanandham ... Petitioner vs.

M.Thambi Raj ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.S.No.607 of 2023, dated 15.10.2025 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Udumalaipet.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arumugavel For Respondent : Mr.S.Prabhu

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Udumalaipet in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.S.No.607 of 2023, dated 15.10.2025, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for comparison of questioned Suit Sale Agreement with admitted documents in Documents Nos.6376 of 2023 and 2226 of 2010.

1/4

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of Suit Sale Agreement dated 14.06.2023. The suit is at the stage of defendant's side evidence. The petitioner/defendant filed instant application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to take the questioned document and the admitted documents to Hand Writing Expert for getting his opinion. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contended that as per the case of the respondent the petitioner entered into a Suit Sale Agreement marked as Ex.A1 and the same was attested by his Son-Jayasingh. However, the signature found in Ex.A1-Suit Sale Agreement is not that of petitioner's son-Jayasingh. Therefore, the instant application has been filed by the petitioner for getting Expert Opinion and same was dismissed by the Trial Court erroneously. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

4. A perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant before the Trial Court would establish the signatures of the petitioner and his son-Jayasingh were not at all specifically denied in the written statement 2/4

filed by the petitioner. Infact, in the written statement, the petitioner denied the readiness and willingness of the respondent and had taken the plea the Suit Sale Agreement was barred by limitation by efflux of time. Having failed to take a specific plea denying the signatures in the Suit Sale Agreement, it is not open to the petitioner to lead evidence with regard to the signatures found in the Suit Sale Agreement.

5. It is rudimentary principle of law that litigant is not entitled to lead any evidence, without foundational plea. The Trial Court rightly pointed out the same and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Udumalaipet in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.S.No.607 of 2023, dated 15.10.2025.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. 05.12.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No : Yes / No dm To The IV Additional District Judge, Udumalaipet. 3/4

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

dm 05.12.2025 4/4