Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has implored to quash and set -aside the order dated 18th March, 2011, whereby the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Alwar dismissed the prayer with regard to sending the promissory note to hand writing expert for its comparison.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the Petitioner -Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against the Respondent -Defendant under the provisions of Order 37 Code of Civil Procedure. The said suit was based on the promissory note, signed by the Defendant. It is revealed from the written statement filed by the Defendant that the Respondent -Defendant had denied the execution of any promissory note as also his signatures thereon. These documents were marked as Ex. -1 and 2 during the trial of the suit and the Defendant denied the execution of promissory note and signatures on both these exhibits during his examination also. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner -Plaintiff prayed that albeit the Defendant had denied the execution of promissory note, but the court ought to have ordered and sent the promissory note to hand writing expert to adjudge its genuineness, in the interest of justice. Since the promissory note is the basis of the suit and its genuineness has been questioned by the Respondent -Defendant, in such a case, the genuineness ought to have got adjudged from the hand writing expert to meet the ends of justice. Thus, the impugned order is not correct in the eye of law and deserves to be set -aside.
(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the suit for recovery of money had been pending before the trial court for the last 8 years. The argument set -forth by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he came to know about the fact that the Defendant -Respondent denied the execution of promissory note only when his statement was recorded by the trial court, does not seem to be correct. The fact is that the Respondent -Defendant filed the written statement before the trial court denying categorically the execution of any such promissory note and his signatures thereon. This fact of denial of execution with regard to promissory note came into the knowledge of the Petitioner on that very date when the written statement was filed. If he wished, he could implore the learned trial court for sending this document to hand writing expert for its comparison, but the Petitioner got awakened after eight years when the suit is at its final stage. It appears that the Petitioner has filed the said application just with a view to procrastinate the trial of the suit. The learned trial court has rightly disallowed the prayer of the Petitioner -Plaintiff. Apart that, the court could also compare the disputed signatures of the Defendant with the admitted signatures under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act. The impugned order is found to be just and proper, which suffers from no legal infirmity and to my firm view, it warrants no intervention.;