Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The suit was subsequently taken for trial and the plaintiff had examined herself as P.W.1. She was also cross-examined and the plaintiff side was closed. The defendant also examined himself as D.W.1. But in the midst of examination of D.W.1. in evidence, the present application under Order 8, Rule 9, CPC was filed by the petitioner for filing an additional written statement.

4. In the proposed additional written statement the defendant/petitioner contends that it was only when he was in the witness box he had seen the suit promissory note and found that the signature in the promissory note was not his own, and that therefore, he came to realise that the suit promissory note was a rank piece of forgery and that therefore, the plaintiff was bound to prove the execution and validity of the suit promissory note. He has further pleaded that inasmuch as he had seen the promissory note only when he was tendering evidence as D.W.1, he has not cross-examined the plaintiff with reference to the said allegation. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition for filing written statement also the defendant had reiterated the same allegations and that he came to know of the forgery in the promissory note only on 27.1.1997. It is further pleaded that if he is not permitted to file the additional written statement he will be put to loss and hardship.