CRP/889/2026 of Prabhakaran Mathiyazhgan, Vs Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust,

CRP No. 889 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 889 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 4800 OF 2026 Prabhakaran Mathiyazhgan, Sathyam Homes No.25, ASK Nagar, 3rd Cross, Madambakkam, East Tambaram, Chennai -600 126. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust, Represented by Its Managing Trustee, New No.24(Old No.25), Sir C.V.Raman Road, Alwarpet, Chennai -600 018. 2. Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Represented by its General Manager (HR), (Deemed University) Porur, Chennai -600 116. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judge on 06.01.2026 in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.1440 of 2024 pending on the file of the XXIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 889 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 For Petitioner(s): Mrs. V.S.Usharani For Respondent(s): Mr.Arun C.Mohan for R1 & R2 ORDER Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.1440 of 2024 by the learned XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 2. Before the trial court, the respondents/defendants filed an applic ation under Sec.72 of BSA r/w Sec.39 and 41 of BSA, praying to direct the docume nt No.2 (alleged confirmation order dated 22.01.2020) and documents of and prior to the year 2020 that are submitted before this court along with t he present application be sent to the Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu for expert opinion on the authenticity of signatures, handwriting a nd seal impression. On hearing both sides, the trial judge allowed the application and by appointing an Advocate Commissioner, the documents were directed to be se nt for expert opinion, which is under challenge by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff before this court. 2. The learned counsel for revision petitioner raised objections stating that the court ought not to have allowed the application directing to refer the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 889 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 disputed document along with the reply notice which is filed as doc ument No.5 for comparison as all those documents are not been marked before this court so far as an exhibit before this court. The learned counsel submitted that the court has also arrived into pre-matured conclusion that if the document is found forged, then the application filed by the respondents for perjury could be processed and this revision petitioner would be held liable for the off ence of perjury, which is totally out of the scope of the suit. He would also submit that he filed a suit only to recover his service benefits from the res pondent college, for which, he had been dragged on from pillar to post with an inte ntion to frustrate him and thereby to quit the proceedings. The learned counsel would further submit that the documents, which were sought for comparison have not been marked before the trial court, without which, it cannot be taken for comparison. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of trial judge. 3.Heard and considered rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4. On perusal of records, the fact reveals that respondents/plaintiffs have filed an application to compare the signature found in the document N o.2 i.e. the confirmation letter along with contemporaneous period of document si nce they are doubting the genuineness of the said document pertaining to the ye ar 2022, which was rightly considered by the trial judge. Furthermore, the y are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 889 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 disputing the genuineness of document No.2, for which they are entitled to find out the truth and genuineness of the documents and also to adjudicate the issue, the comparison of documents is just and necessary, since they are being t he parties to the suit. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the trial judge is sustainable one, which requires no interference. Accordingly, the findings rendered in in I.A.No. 3 of 2025 in O.S.No.1440 of 2024 by the XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellane ous petition is closed. 08-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RPP To The XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 889 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 T.V.THAMILSELVI J. RPP CRP No. 889 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 4800 OF 2026 08-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis