P. Sivakumar vs Arul Devi Paper Mills Private Limited

CRP No. 6189 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6189 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012323752026}
and
CMP No. 26790 of 2026
P. Sivakumar
Carrying on Business
Under the Name and style of
M/s.Sri Lakshmi and Co
as its Proprietor
No.2/1 Nattu Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Sowcarpet,
Chennai-600 001
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Arul Devi Paper Mills Private Limited
Rep by its Managing Director,
nd
2 defendant, having Office at
Vinu Homes, No.5, Thirumal Nagar,
st
1 Main Road, Poonamallee,
Iyappan Kovil Opposite,
Chennai-600 056 Having Factory at
Agavalam Village,
Reddivalam Post, Panapakkam,
Nemili Taluk Vellore District-631 052
2. Parvatham Gnanavel
Director of Arul Devi Paper Mills Private
Limited, having Office Vinu Homes,
No.5 Thirunal Nagar,
st
1 Main Road, Poonamallee
Iyappan Kovil Opposite,
Chennai-600 056
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:24 pm )

CRP No. 6189 of 2026
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 19-09-2026 passed by
the Honourable Principal Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai in I.A.No.6 of
2026 in C.O.S.No.602/2025 and thereby allow the application in I.A.No.6 of
2026.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. S.R.Rajagopal, Senior Advocate for Ms.
Vijayalakshmi Rajagopal
For Respondent(s): Mr.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.V.Seshachari for R1 and R2.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 19.09.2026 passed
in I.A.No.6 of 2026 in C.O.S.No.602 of 2025 on the file of Principal
Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai, wherein the application filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) of Civil Procedure Code to
receive an expert opinion dated 13.08.2026, came to be dismissed by the Court
below.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, perused the
materials available on record and carefully gone through the order passed by the
Court below.
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:24 pm )

CRP No. 6189 of 2026
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff who has filed the commercial suit in
C.O.S.No.602 of 2025 seeking for the relief of recovery of money along with
interest.
4. There was a serious dispute with respect to certain vouchers and
papers relied upon by the defendants and therefore when the issues were framed
by the Court below, the Court below framed an issue to the effect that whether
the defendants obtained signatures of the plaintiff in blank vouchers and blank
papers.
5. The suit reached the stage of trial and the plaintiff wanted to establish
that the contents in the disputed documents were not carrying the hand writing
of the plaintiff. To substantiate the same, the plaintiff obtained an expert
opinion on 13.08.2026. This document was sought to be brought in as an
additional document in order to lay a foundation to send the disputed documents
for expert opinion.
6. The Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that the
plaintiff has admitted the signatures found in those documents and that the
defendants have not claimed that the hand writing found in those documents is
that of the plaintiff and therefore, there is no need for taking the additional
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:24 pm )

CRP No. 6189 of 2026
document relied upon by the plaintiff on record.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that when the original written statement was filed by the defendants,
they merely relied upon the documents without expressing anything on the
contents of the documents and the hand writing found therein. In view of the
same, the plaintiff took steps to establish that the contents of the disputed
documents are not in the hand writing of the plaintiff and got an expert opinion.
When this document was attempted to be brought in as an additional document
by filing the application, at that point of time, the defendants took a stand that
the contents of the documents were scribed by one Nandhikeswaran . It is
submitted that it is due to this vacillating stand taken on the side of the
defendants, the same impelled the plaintiff to file the above application.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents/defendants submitted that the involvement of Nandhikeswaran has
been spelt out even in the written statement and this person has not been
st
introduced for the 1 time in the counter filed in the application. The learned
Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no denial regarding the signature
that is found in the disputed documents and what has been denied is only
regarding the contents of the documents and who was the scribe who wrote
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:24 pm )

CRP No. 6189 of 2026
those contents. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the counter filed
in the application, the defendants have taken a specific stand that it was scribed
by Nandhikeswaran . If that is so, there is no need to rely upon the expert
opinion that is sought to be brought in as an additional document by the plaintiff
since even according to the defendants, the scribe in those disputed documents
is not the plaintiff.
9. In the considered view of this Court, what comes out clear from the
submissions made on either side is that the contents of the disputed documents
have not been scribed by the plaintiff. If that is so, the expert opinion that is
now sought to be brought in as an additional document by the plaintiff becomes
unnecessary. Having said so, the next dispute will touch upon as to who is the
actual scribe regarding the contents found in the disputed documents. The
defendants have taken a stand that it was only Nandhikeswaran who was the
scribe who wrote the contents in the disputed documents. In view of the same,
the onus of proof will be upon the defendants to establish the same. Depending
on what comes out of the evidence, the plaintiff will have to decide the future
course of action.
10. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court
below does not require interference of this Court and the Court below is
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:24 pm )

CRP No. 6189 of 2026
directed to proceed further with the trial and complete the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible. Any observations made while disposing of the
interlocutory application and any observations made by this Court in the present
revision will not have any bearing when the suit is ultimately disposed of on
merits.
11. In result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above
terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ksk
To
Principal Commercial Court, Egmore
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:24 pm )

CRP No. 6189 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
ksk
CRP No. 6189 of 2026 &
CMP No. 26790 of 2026
03-11-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:24 pm )