The repeated failure to avail opportunities granted by the court to lead evidence can amount to an abuse of process of law and delay the final adjudication of a suit.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)--This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the ADJ-10, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') and orders dated 03.10.2018 and 08.12.2016 passed by the Predecessor Bench of the Trial Court, in CS No. 15817/2016, titled as `Tejinder Kaur Kohli v. Kamla Kapoor & Ors.'.

1.1. The Petitioners herein are original defendant nos. 1 to 4 and Respondent No.1 herein is the original plaintiff in the civil suit.

1.2. The Petitioners herein are seeking setting aside of the impugned orders and grant of permission to examine the disputed documents i.e., Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed (Ex. CW 1/B) and Demand Promissory Note (Ex. CW-1/A) [collectively referred to as `disputed documents'] from a typewriting expert, as per law.

2. The Respondent No.1 herein, Ms. Tejinder Kaur Kohli, filed a civil suit on 24.07.2008 with respect to property bearing Plot No. 99, Block-171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi (`suit property'), inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:

"A. A Decree for sale of the property bearing Plot No. 99, Block-171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi i.e. the suit property and direct payment of the outstanding loan amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, till the date of the payment to the Plaintiff from the proceeds of sale of the mortgage property;

B. A decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby restraining Defendants their heirs, agents, representatives, employees etc. from transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit property"

3. The defendant nos. 1 to 4 (i.e., the Petitioners) in the said civil suit filed an application dated 03.05.2016 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') seeking permission to lead evidence of hand writing expert of their choice with respect to the disputed documents, to enable the defendant nos. 1 to 4 to substantiate their stand that the signatures on Demand Promissory Note (Ex. CW-1/A) are forged and do not pertain to late Sh. Inder Raj Kapoor.

3.1. The Trial Court vide order dated 08.12.2016 allowed the said application filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 4 (i.e., the Petitioners) and granted permission to the defendant nos. 1 to 4.

3.2. During the course of said proceedings dated 08.12.2016, the defendant nos. 1 to 4 (i.e., the Petitioners) also sought permission to permit the handwriting expert to examine Ex. CW-1/A and Ex. CW-1/B and ascertain typing fonts so as to opine whether the disputed documents have been typed manually by using the same typewriter or not (hereinafter referred to as `second submission').

3.3. With respect to the second submission, the Trial Court observed that the aspect of examination of the typing fonts of the typewriter would require examination by a typewriting expert, which is distinct from a hand writing expert, to depose and therefore, observed that the Petitioners herein should move a separate application for the said purpose.

3.4. It has however, come on record that the Petitioners did not avail the permission granted by the Trial Court on 08.12.2016 to have the disputed documents examined by the handwriting expert. Further, no separate application was filed for examination by a typewriting expert.

4. The Petitioners herein instead filed an application under Section 151 of CPC on 25.02.2017 seeking permission for examination of disputed documents, by Scientific Experts of CFSL.

4.1. However, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 20.04.2017, while observing that the Trial Court had earlier vide order dated 08.12.2016 already permitted the Petitioners to examine the handwriting expert of their choice.

4.2. The Trial Court held that the said application dated 25.02.2017 cannot be allowed since, (i) such opinion cannot be obtained from experts of CFSL who are burdened with criminal cases; and (ii) opinion on these doc