P.Rakkiappan v. V.Vijayalakshmi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.No.30433 of 2025 P.Rakkiappan ... Petitioner (in all CRPs) vs.

V.Vijayalakshmi ... Respondent (in all CRPs) COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 17.11.2025 made in I.A.Nos.7, 5 and 6 of 2025 in O.S.No.252 of 2020 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. For Petitioner : Mr.J.D.Srikanth Varma (in all CRPs) C O M M O N O R D E R These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.Nos.5, 6 and 7 of 2025 in O.S.No.252 of 2020, dated 17.11.2025 dismissing the applications filed 1/4

by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to reopen plaintiff's side evidence, to summon the original Partition Deed in Document No.614/2009, dated 23.02.2009 and the original Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 26.03.2009 deposited with Bank and to compare the Suit Promissory Note with the said documents.

2. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money based on Promissory Note dated 11.07.2015. The trial in the suit is over and the same is posted for argument. At this stage, the petitioner/plaintiff filed these three applications. In the affidavit filed in support of these applications, it was stated by the petitioner that the respondent when she was examined as DW.1 admitted the signature of her father-D.Venkatesan found in Partition Deed in Document No.614/2009, dated 23.02.2009 and the original Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 26.03.2009 deposited with Bank respectively and hence, those documents shall be summoned from the Bank and compared with the questioned document by the Expert.

3. The Suit Promissory Note was dated 11.07.2015. The document sought to be summoned by the plaintiff from the Bank came into existence in the year 2009. Therefore, the documents relied on by the 2/4

petitioner/plaintiff are not contemporaneous document with the Suit Promissory Note. In such circumstances, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner on the ground the petitioner failed to produce any contemporaneous documents for comparison. I do not find any error in the impugned order in I.A.Nos.5, 6 and 7 of 2025 in O.S.No.252 of 2020, dated 17.11.2025

4. Accordingly, all these Civil Revision Petitions are 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 1st Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

3/4

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

dm 05.12.2025 4/4