High Court · 2025

A NO. 3053 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABUA.No.3053 of 2025inC.S.No.321 of 2019PRABHU RAMAKRISHNAN and anotherN.No.3, Venkatachalam Chetty Street, Triplicane, Ch 5 and another Applicant(s) VsMr.Shyam Kumar Shrivastava (Deceased) 1.Mr.Ramkumar ShrivastavaH.No.687, Near Dr. Arua Bhatnagar Clinic, Near Sheetalamai, Ghamapur, Jabalpur Mr.Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava (Deceased) and 25 Others Respondent(s) For Applicant(s): Mr.S.PugaleanthiFor Respondent(s): Mr.A.Palaniappan (For R9 to R19) Mr.S.A.Shanmugam (For R1 to R8, R24 to R26) Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader (For R2)1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDERThe present application has been filed to refer the signature found in the affidavit filed in support of the application by respondents 9 to 19/defendants 11 to 21 in A.No.6026 of 2023, 6027 of 2023, 6028 of 2023, 6029 of 2023, 6030 of 2023, 6031 of 2023, 6032 of 2023, 6033 of 2023, 6034 of 2023, 6035 of 2023 in the above suit in C.S.No.321 of 2019 to expert opinion by comparing the signature alleged to have been signed by the respondent in the above said documents with that of the admitted documents/vakalat.2. Mr.S.Pugaleanthi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the signature of the respondents 9 to 19, who are the defendants 11 to 21, vary in the vakalats and the affidavits filed by them seeking to condone the delay in filing their written statements. He would submit that such discrepancy is very much visible to the naked eye. Therefore, he would submit that the respondents have attempted to commit perjury, for which, this Court would have to necessarily send the documents for Forensic examination. Therefore, he prays this Court to refer the signatures found in the affidavits filed in support of the application by respondents 9 to 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/defendants 11 to 21 in A.No.6026 of 2023, 6027 of 2023, 6028 of 2023, 6029 of 2023, 6030 of 2023, 6031 of 2023, 6032 of 2023, 6033 of 2023, 6034 of 2023, 6035 of 2023 in the above suit in C.S.No.321 of 2019 to expert opinion by comparing the signature alleged to have been signed by the respondent in the above said documents with that of the admitted documents/vakalat.3. Countering his arguments, Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 9 to 19, would vehemently contend that there may be occasions, where a party's signature could vary. He would submit that the present application is only a ruse to protract the proceedings. In spite of directions given by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and this Court to complete the evidence within a time frame, the applicant, who is the plaintiff, had never chosen to enter into the box and having been enjoying the benefit of injunction, thereby causing prejudice to the respondents. He would further submit that the respondents 9 to 19 are present before this Court. This Court can enquire them directly with regard to the execution of the said documents by them. Therefore, he would submit that the application may be dismissed with costs and further orders should be passed, directing the plaintiff to record 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the evidence, failing which order of injunction should be vacated.4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side.5. This Court has compared the documents namely the vakalats and the affidavits filed by the parties. It is to be noted that the vakalats have been notarized and similarly certain of the affidavits of the respondents are notarized. A bare perusal of the vakalats and the affidavits would show that there are some differences in the signature. The respondents 9 to 19 present before this Court, have unanimously stated that it is they, who had executed the said documents. The act of perjury in filing false documents before the Court can arise only when a party claims that their signature has been forged by someone else to their detriment.6. In the present case, the respondents have unequivocally claimed to be the signatories to both sets of documents. Hence, this Court is of the view that in the present facts of the case, the allegation of perjury is not made out. The applicant has also not demonstrated any prejudice caused to him in this regard. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merits in the application 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and accordingly, the present application stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.14-07-2025(1/2)kakTo1. Mr.Shyam Kumar Shrivastava (Deceased) 1.Mr.Ramkumar ShrivastavaH.No.687, Near Dr. Arua Bhatnagar Clinic, Near Sheetalamai, Ghamapur, JabalpurMr.Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava (Deceased)2. Mrs.Anita ShrivastavaNo.G/109, Bangala Desh Colony, Ahartal Krishi Nagar, Jabalpur3. Mrs.Sangeeta SetpalRailway Qtr No.RN -II/279/7, 2nd Bridge Prakash Colony Civil Line, Jabalpur4. Mrs.Rashmi KhareNo.90, Quarter,Sanjeevnee NagarJabalpur5. Mrs.Keerthi ShrivastavaBehind Shubj Motors, Near Kachh Patiar Samaj, Maha Nada Roa, Jabaalpur6. Mr.Vijay Kumar VermaInfront of Shakti Apartment, Madhan Maha station Road, Jabalppur7. Mr.Ajay Kumar VermaNo.1728, Wright Town, Infront of Shakti Apartment, Madhan Maha Station Road, Jabalppur8. Mrs.Neeta ShrivastavaNo.90, B Sharada Kunj, Phase II, Behind Shravan Kanta State Ayodhaya By Pass, P.P.Pipalani, Bhopal5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9. Sambath KumarNo 15B, Shunmugam Nagar, Padharikuppam, Cuddapore10. NaryananNo.109, M.M. Colony, 2nd Street, A Block, Aminjikarai Ch 2911. Pradeep KumarNo.1,2,3 SATYAVEDU vardulu12. SelvduraiNo 113, Maduraisamy Madam, Perambur, Ch 1113. NirmalNo.321, Perumal Kovil Street, Kannadapalayam, Pothur,Ch 6214. R.Rama KrishnanNo.321, Perumal Kovil Street, Kannadapalayam, Pothur, Ch 6215. A.Vijaya KumarNo.11, Thirumalai Nagar Extn II, Kolathur, Ch 9916. MunuswamyNo.109, M.M. Colony, 2nd Street, A Block, Aminjikarai, Ch 2917. A.BaskarNo.1, V Block, S.S.Puram, Bricklin Road, Purasawalkkam, Ch 718. D.LokeshBarakka Road, 2nd Street, Nammalvarpet, Ch 1219. K.Prakash10, Nallama Naidu Street, nammalvarpet, Ch 1220. Sub RegistrarRed hills, Ch 5221. A.K.Nageswara RaoNo.86/1, BARACKA rOAD, varadammal Garden, third Street, Kilpauk, Chennai 1022. Priyanshi Shrivastva6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis aged about 24 years defendants 24 and 25 brought on records as legal heirs of the deceased 3rd defendant as per order dated 22.06.2021 in A.No.923/202123. Yash Kumar Shrivastavaaged about 22 years and both residing at No.D/225, Maa Narmade nagar, behind swami Aiyappa School, Bilher i, Mandala Road, Jabalpur(MP)24. Meeta ShrivastavaW/o.Shyam Kumar Shrivastava25. Harsh ShrivastavaS/o.Shyam Kumar Shrivastava26. Harshita ShrivastavaD/o.Shyam Kumar Shrivastava, Defendants 26 to 28 are residing at Rb/V/355/4, Infront of Hotel Lovely inn, Near railway Station, Satpura Club, Civil Line, Jabalpur, (MP)7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K.KUMARESH BABU, J.kakA.No.3053 of 2025inC.S.No.321 of 201914.07.20258/8