Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Heard Sri K. Sita Ram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C. Prakash Reddy and Sri S. Malla Rao, learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the trial Court is contrary to law and facts, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. He submits that the trial Court judge failed to consider the evidence both oral and documentary evidence while considering the application for condonation of delay of 1420 days in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. He further submits that the petitioner is residing in Mumbai since 20 years but the respondent wantonly filed a suit for recovery of money basing on the alleged suit promissory note which is rank forgery. He further submits that there are no wilful laches on the part of the petitioner. Therefore learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned order.

8. On a reading of the impugned order, this Court observed that the trial Court judge was totally oblivious of the existence of the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner in the form of oral evidence and also the report of handwriting expert which goes to show that the signature on the suit promissory note is a forgery. Further, expert opined that the signature available on the promissory note is not that of the petitioner. It is also observed that though there was an order for publication of notice in the Hindu daily newspaper there was no material on record to show the fact. Therefore, the trial Court erred in considering the material on record and mechanically dismissed the application.