(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned fair and decretal order dated 02.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2025 in O.S.No.99 of 2015 by the learned Additional District Judge, Dindigul, allow the said I.A. and the Civil Revision Petition.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned fair and decretal order dated 02.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.10 of 2025 in O.S.No.99 of 2015 by the learned Additional District Judge, Dindigul, allow the said I.A. and the Civil Revision Petition.)

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned fair and decretal order dated 02.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.11 of 2025 in O.S.No.99 of 2015 by the learned Additional District Judge, Dindigul, insofar as it rejected reception of Document No.1 Discharge Summary dated 31.03.2016, allow the said I.A. In its entirety and the Civil Revision Petition.)

Common Order

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dindigul, in I.A.Nos.9, 10 and 11 of 2025 in O.S.No.99 of 2015, dated 02.03.2026.

2. The defendants 4 to 6 are the civil revision petitioners. The first respondent is the plaintiff. The second respondent is the proprietorship firm run by the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second petitioner. The third respondent is the third defendant in the suit.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

4. O.S.No.99 of 2015 is a suit for recovery of money of Rs.1,10,44,583/-. This amount constitutes Rs.81,25,000/- being the principal and Rs.29,19,583/- being the interest.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that he entered into an agreement of sale with the third defendant. The agreement was for purchase of immovable properties of the third defendant. The total consideration for the sale was Rs.1,46,00,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that he had paid a sum of Rs.86,00,000/- to the third defendant, leaving a balance of Rs.60,00,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that originally, the second defendant, representing himself and the proprietorship firm referred to above, agreed to pay the balance of Rs.60,00,000/- to the third defendant and obtain a registered general power of attorney in his name. It was further agreed that the sum of Rs.86,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the third defendant would be returned by the second defendant and the firm.

6. It was further alleged that the second defendant paid a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- and obtained a general power of attorney from the third defendant and in discharge of the aforesaid understanding, he had issued two cheques amounting to Rs.86,00,000/- to the plaintiff. He also alleged that the second defendant had paid a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- in cash and in the presence of one Dr.R.Ravindran, the second defendant, representing himself as the proprietor of the first defendant firm, issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.81,25,000/- and took return of the earlier cheques issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that he presented the two cheques and they were dishonoured. Consequently, he presented the suit for recovery of the aforesaid sum against the first and second defendants.

7. Summons were served on the defendants. The second defendant entered appearance through a counsel. He did so on 22.12.2015. Subsequently, on 28.03.2016, he also filed his written statement. The second defendant passed away on 24.04.2016. On the death of the second defendant, the petitioners, being his legal representatives, were brought on record as defendants 4 to 6. The fourth defendant, being the mother and natural guardian for defendants 5 and 6, also filed a written statement on 12.04.2018.

8. With the pleadings having been completed, the matter went up for trial. The evidence of the plaintiff was completed and it was listed for evidence of the defendants. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. The fourth defendant entered the witness box and deposed in evidence between 06.09.2021 and 27.09.2021. Another witness, by name, Karthikeyan, was examined as D.W.2.

9. While the matter was so poised with the parties having filed additional pleadings, the defendants 4 to 6 filed three applications in I.A.Nos.9 to 11 of 2025. I.A.No.9 of 2025 was filed seeking to send the written statement filed by her husband/second defendant for comparison with his admitted signatures by a forensic expert and to obtain a report. I.A.No.10 of 2025 was filed to send the written statement and affidavit filed by the fourth defendant for comparison with her admitted signatures. I.A.No.11 of 2025 was filed seeking permission to receive three documents, namely, discharge summary dated 31.03.2016, registered sale deed dated 13.02.2020 and reply letter dated 30.04.2025.

10. The plea of the defendants 4 to 6 is that the proprietary concern was closed in the year 2014, even during the lifetime of the second defendant. Whatever loans had been outstanding on his demise, the fourth defendant had settled the same by alienating her properties. She urged that she changed her counsel in June 2025 and engaged a new counsel. The new counsel had perused the bundle available in the Court. At that time, it came to their knowledge that while the deceased second defendant had signed the vakkalat, the signature found in the written statement dated 28.03.2016 does not belong to him. They pleaded that it appears to have been forged and filed in the Court. It was further added that in March 2016, the health of the second defendant was precarious and hence, he could not have been in a position to appear before the Court or sign any written statement.

11. Similarly, it was alleged that the signatures found in the written statement dated 12.04.2018 filed by the fourth defendant as well as in the affidavit filed to let in additional written statement in I.A.No.48 of 2019 and the additional written statement filed on 26.03.2019, are not her signatures. On these pleas, the defendants 4 to 6 sought the aforesaid relief.

12. Notice was ordered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a counter stating that the allegations of forgery are absolutely untenable. He pointed out that an Advocate had filed change of vakkalat on 06.06.2022 for defendants 4 to 6 and had also filed additional written statements, which were in line with the earlier written statements and the chief examination of D.W.1. It was further contended that the defendants 4 and 5 had filed yet another additional statement on 25.03.2025 and now are abusing the process of Court by taking a contrary stand. The plaintiff further urged that the additional documents filed by the defendants are inadmissible and irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the applications.

13. On the basis of the affidavit and counter, the learned Judge took up the applications for disposal. He found that D.W.1 had completed her cross-examination in 2021 and D.W.2 in 2022. He found fault with the defendants 4 to 6 for having filed an application with an extraordinary delay of nine years. He noted that the written statement had been a part of the record from 2016 and that a mere change in counsel cannot be a ground to re-open the procedural steps that attained finality. He further held that at no point of time, the second defendant had ever taken a stand that the written statement filed by him is forged and further, his legal representatives having come on record, did not take steps over a long period of time. He left it open to the defendants 4 to 6 to rely upon the documents filed by them at the appropriate time in the suit. He concluded that the selective challenge to the signature in the written statement is artificial and is lacking bona fides. He further pointed out that the Court had examined the earlier counsel, who had confirmed the factum of signature of the deceased in the written statement and that the new stand taken by the defendants 4 to 6 on a change of counsel shows their new interest is to prolong the litigation. On these grounds, the learned Judge dismissed the applications. Hence, these revisions.

14. I heard Mr.Arun Anbumani, representing Mr.D.Vijay, for the petitioners.

15. Mr.Arun Anbumani referred to the medical records of the deceased second defendant to point out that he had been undergoing a treatment for end stage liver disease at a reputed hospital from 21.03.2016 to 28.03.2016 and again from 31.03.2016 till 08.04.2016. On the basis of the medical records, he argued that when the second defendant had been discharged from the hospital only on 28.03.2016 at 20.53 hours, it would be humanly impossible for him to be present in Dindigul on the same day to sign the written statement and file the same during court hours. He further urged that, except for the vakkalat dated 22.09.2016, all the other signatures found in the pleadings of the fourth defendant, are forged. He urged that no opportunity had been given to cross-examine the erstwhile counsel, who was examined by the Court. He pointed out that the suit itself is frivolous and as legal representatives of the deceased second defendant, they had no connection whatsoever with the claim of the plaintiff. He stated that the approach of the court was entirely erroneous and that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

16. I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr.Arun Anbumani. I have gone through the records.

17. This is a simple suit for recovery of money. The plaintiff claims that the deceased second defendant had taken over the liability of payment of the remaining sale consideration to be made by the plaintiff to the third defendant and had assured the plaintiff to return whatever consideration that the plaintiff had paid to the third defendant. The plaintiff further claims that two cheques had been issued by the deceased second defendant in favour of the plaintiff and as the same had been dishonoured, he has come forth with the present suit. Unfortunately, pending the litigation, the second defendant passed away and the civil revision petitioners were brought on record as his legal heirs.

18. The civil revision petitioners, being legal heirs, cannot take a claim or a stand which had not been taken by the original second defendant. The comparison today, that Mr.Arun Anbumani wants to do, is to find out the veracity of the written statement filed by the deceased second defendant. I have already pointed out that the written statement was filed as early as on 28.03.2016. Shortly thereafter, the second defendant passed away. The written statement of the defendants 4 to 6 themselves, the legal heirs, came to be filed two years thereafter in April 2018. Till 2021, no one disputed the proceedings before the Court. Taking advantage of a stray question posed in the cross-examination of D.W.1, she seems to have been inspired to take a stand that while the vakalat has been executed by her husband, the written statement has not been.

19. I should point out here that, if not for the written statement being filed by the second defendant, there is a possibility of the second defendant himself having been set ex parte. The suit having been presented in November of 2015, the written statement had been filed with much delay only in March of 2016. It is not the case of Mr.Arun Anbumani that the documents on the basis of which the plaintiff claims right are forged. On the contrary, his claim is that the defence that has been set up by the husband/second defendant and by herself are forged. Records and proceedings of the Court cannot be imaged as cursory, as is being sought to be done now.

20. The fourth defendant, even assuming, came to be aware of the alleged forgery in 2021, there is no explanation as to why till June of 2025, by which time the suit had reached an advanced stage, the present stand had not been taken.

21. It is a settled position of law that there cannot be any evidence, oral or documentary, without a plea. The attempt of Mr.Arun Anbumani to question the very written statement, on the basis of which issues were framed and the parties had gone for trial and had deposed in evidence, is a plea that is sought to be raised without any pleading at all. The purpose of a pleading in a suit is to ensure that the adversary is not taken by surprise. If the new plea of giving up the written statement is permitted to be raised, the entire substratum of the defence in the suit, commencing from March of 2016 till June of 2025, would fall. Such a strategy cannot be permitted by any Court, let alone by this Court.

22. The power under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is not meant for the purpose of comparison of post litem documents. Section 45 and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act are to be utilised for the comparison of the suit documents, when disputed along with the admitted documents. It is not the plea of the defendants 4 to 6 that the cheques or the general power of attorney said to have been executed in favour of the second defendant are forged. These documents are the fulcrum of the case of the plaintiff. The plea is that the defence that has been presented to the Court via a written statement is a forged one. A written statement sets forth the defence of the defendant. It is after the reading of the plaint and the written statement that the Court frames the issues to be answered in the suit. At that stage, there was no objection. After the issues are framed, parties are given an opportunity to file their respective documents. At that stage too, there was no objection. The evidence commenced in the suit in and about 2018 and has been continuing till date. In 2021, the fourth defendant entered the witness box. She did not take a stand in her chief examination that the written statement is forged. A question was posed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in cross-examination. It is for the first time at that stage that the fourth defendant had denied the signature of the deceased second defendant in the written statement. If the fourth defendant found that the signature of her husband has been forged as early as in 2021, it is surprising that a lady of sound judgment and mature age would keep quiet for a further period of four years in order to set up a new defence. The plea that she was mislead by the counsel is extremely uncharitable to say the least. It was the very same counsel, who defended the suit from 2016 till 2022, a sufficiently large period of time during the course of litigation for the defendants to turn back and accuse the said counsel.

23. The fourth defendant has not only given up the written statement filed by her husband, but surprisingly, has taken a stand, even the written statement filed by her is an act of forgery. It is not unknown in suits for recovery of money that defendants set up such claims. There have been instances where while denying the signature in the pro-note, parties have gone to the extent of denying their signature even in the written statement. The learned Trial Judge has gone into all these issues threadbare. He has categorically returned a finding that the vakalat executed by the deceased second defendant and the cheque relied upon by the plaintiff in support of the case have been admittedly issued and signed by the deceased second defendant. This is the foundation of the case. The plea that the written statement is forged and should be sent for examination, not only questions the manner in which the Trial Court has proceeded with the suit, but also is a dilatory tactics adopted by the defendants 4 to 6 in order to prolong the life of a money suit, which has been pending for nearly 11 years from the date of its presentation.

24. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merits in the revisions and the same are dismissed. As the revisions are dismissed in the admission stage itself, I find no necessity to impose a cost, which, I would have otherwise done, had the respondents been called upon to enter appearance in the revision. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.