Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the instant case, at the earliest point of time, the petitioner has taken the plea that the suit promissory note is a forgery. From his affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.685 of 2012, it is evident that the petitioner has not stopped only at the said denial. He has gone to the further extent of stating in the written statement that he would take steps to send the suit promissory note to the Expert for comparison with his admitted signatures. Having said so, the petitioner kept quiet without filing such application till the trial was completed and the suit was posted for arguments. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, belatedness of the application for sending the disputed document to an Expert for comparison shall not constitute the sole reason for rejection of such application. However, the conduct of the parties is very much relevant in considering such applications, for, more often, the defendants come out with such applications at a belated stage with a view to drag on the suits as a desperate measure. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the application made at a belated stage is not bona fide and the same is intended to prolong the suit, delay in filing such an application would certainly constitute a relevant ground in dismissing the same. Undoubtedly, the case on hand is one such case where even though the petitioner has come out with his stand in unequivocal terms that the suit promissory note was a forgery and claimed that he is going to make an application for sending the same for Expert's opinion, for the reasons best known to him, he has not filed any such application till the entire evidence was closed and the suit was posted for arguments. On the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the belated filing of the application by the petitioner is certainly a relevant ground, which disentitles him to claim the relief.