Madras HC Upholds Rejection Of Trader’s Handwriting Report, Says Paper-Mill Defendants Must Prove Their Claim Another Man Wrote Disputed Papers

The petitioner-plaintiff filed a commercial suit seeking recovery of money with interest.

During trial, the plaintiff obtained an expert opinion dated 13 August 2026 and applied under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC to produce it as an additional document, intending to support a request for expert examination of the disputed documents.

The Commercial Court dismissed the application, and the plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution

Before the High Court, the defendants maintained that the disputed contents had been written by Nandhikeswaran, not the plaintiff

The application was made under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was the procedural basis invoked to seek leave to produce the expert opinion as an additional document

The Court considered its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in reviewing the Commercial Court’s order

It also held, on the facts, that because the defendants asserted that Nandhikeswaran had scribed the disputed contents, the defendants bore the onus of establishing that assertion

The Court found that the dispute concerned the authorship of the contents, rather than whether the signatures were the plaintiff’s.

The defendants’ stated position that Nandhikeswaran wrote the contents meant that the expert opinion sought to show the contents were not in the plaintiff’s handwriting was unnecessary.

The live question was who had written them, and the defendants would have to prove their assertion that Nandhikeswaran was the scribe.

The plaintiff could decide on any further course of action in light of the evidence at trial.

Accordingly, the Court found no ground to interfere with the Commercial Court’s order

It directed the Commercial Court to proceed with the trial and complete it as expeditiously as possible.

It clarified that the observations made in disposing of the application and revision would not affect the final decision on the merits.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed