Court ruled that determining material alterations in a cheque is a judicial function that should not rely on expert testimony.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.06.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P.No.3034 of 2021 V.P.Venkatachalam .. Petitioner Vs.

V.M.Periyasamy .. Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.04.2021 made in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in A.S.No.76 of 2018 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode.

For the Petitioner : Ms.R.Mahamandra Rajalakshmi For the Respondent : Mr.V.S.Kesavan ORDER This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, in I.A.No.3 of

2020 in A.S.No.76 of 2018 dated 16.04.2021.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as their ranks in the suit.

3.1. The civil revision petitioner is the respondent in the appeal.

O.S.No.775 of 1999, on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court at Erode, was presented for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,12,320/-. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant received a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- from him and had issued a post-dated cheque dated 02.11.1996, for discharge of the said amount. The plaintiff pleads that he presented the cheque for encashment and it was returned as “funds insufficient”. Consequently, the plaintiff initiated the suit, as well as criminal proceedings in C.C.No.390 of 1997 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II at Erode.

3.2. Summons were served upon the defendant. The defendant filed a written statement, totally denying the knowledge about the cheque. Issues were framed and the parties were pushed for trial.

During the course of the Trial, the plaintiff deposed as follows:

“vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gLk; Mtzj;jpy; cs;s U/2.40.000/00 vd;w M';fpyj;jpy; vGjg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mJ vd;Dila vGj;Jjhd;/ ,e;j thrf';fs; ehd;jhd; vGjpndd;/ ,e;j U/2.40.000/00f;Fj;jhd; thjp vd; kPJ ,e;j tHf;if jhf;fy; bra;Js;shu; vd;gij bjhpe;J bfhz;nld;/

fhnrhiyapy; cs;s fl;lj;jpw;Fs; U/24.000/00 vd;W vz;zhy; vGjpndd; vGj;jhy; U/2.40.000/00 vd;W ehd; vGjp tpl;L f;l;lj;jpw;Fs; U/ 24.000/00 vd;W ehd; vGjp tpl;nld;/ vGj;jhy; vGjpa bjhiff;Fk;. Vz;zhy; vGjpa bjhiff;Fk; Kuz;ghL cs;s fhuzj;jpdhy;. mjpy; ehd; ifbaGj;J bra;a ntz;Lk;/ fhnrhiyapy; cs;s ifbaGj;Jf;fs; midj;Jk; vGjpa gpwFjhd; ifbaGj;J ,l;ljhf bjuptpf;fpwhu;/”

3.3. The learned Trial Judge, who took on the suit for disposal, came to the conclusion that as the defendant had denied the signatures in the cheque and since there were material alterations, the suit deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, he dismissed the suit.

4.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.76 of 2018. Pending the appeal before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, the respondent/defendant/civil revision petitioner filed an application to send the original cheque to an expert in the Tamil Nadu Forensic Department at Madras. The purpose being to obtain the expert's opinion and report of analysis to find out the material alterations, as regards the date (6) and to submit a report.

4.2. This application was numbered as I.A.No.3 of 2020. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, after receipt of the counter from the plaintiff/appellant, dismissed the application, hence, the revision.

5. I heard Ms.R.Mahamandra Rajalakshmi, for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.V.S.Kesavan, for the respondent.

6. The respective learned counsels reiterated the contentions that were placed by them before the Lower Appellate Court. I have gone through the records.

7. An expert's opinion would be necessary if the defendant had stuck to his position that the signatures on the cheque were not his and had been forged or manipulated by the plaintiff. The extract of the deposition set out above would clearly show that the defendant has admitted to the signatures on the cheque, as well as adjustments to the corrections made by him on