JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order XVII Rule 10-A of CPC, praying

(i) to receive two (2) additional documents filed by the Applicant more fully described in the schedule appended to the Judge''s Summons and

(ii) to issue commission to a forensic expert or a forensic laboratory to conduct forensic examination of the documents more fully described in the schedule appended to the Judge''s Summons by comparing the actual and the forged signatures of the 1st Applicant and the handwriting of the 1st Respondent and to file a report before this Court.)

This application has been filed by the applicants/ plaintiffs seeking permission to receive two additional documents filed by the applicants more fully described in the schedule appended to the judge''s summons and to issue a commission to a forensic expert or a forensic laboratory to conduct a forensic examination of the documents more fully described in the schedule appended to the judge''s summons by comparing the actual and forged signatures of the 1st applicant and the handwriting of the 1st respondent and to file a report before this Court.

2. The averments of the petition in brief:

The applicants are the plaintiffs. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of money and return of gold deposited in the locker. The money belonged to the applicants were illegally withdrawn from the bank accounts of the applicants without the consent and the knowledge of the applicants. During the pendency of the suit the applicant''s staff found certain documents in possession of the 1st respondent and they are vital and important for deciding the issues in the suit.

2.1. A car bearing registration No. TN 10 BC 1818 belonging to M/s V.R.G. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (“Company”) was being used by the 1st respondent for his personal use since year 2017. Since the company required additional vehicles for official usage, the car that was being used by the 1st respondent was taken over by the company in August-2021. During the 4th week of May-2022 when the said car was sent for service and maintenance, the staff of the applicant company discovered certain documents that were in the possession of the 1st respondent from the boot of the car. A cheque book belonging to the bank account of the 1st applicant with the 4th respondent bank containing a cheque slip with entries made by the 1st respondent and a cancelled cheque bearing No.181593 carrying the forged signature of the 1st applicant was discovered in the boot of the car under the spare tyre. The applicant was shocked to note that his chequebook had several entries starting from 31.12.2012 with the handwriting of the 1st respondent. The undated cancelled cheque bearing No.181593 for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- seemed to be in favour of the 1st respondent and it contained the forged signature of the 1st applicant. So it indicates that there is every possibility of the 1st respondent forging the signature of the 1st applicant. This will support the applicants contention that the 1st respondent misused the cheque book belonging to the applicants and has withdrawn several amounts without the knowledge and consent of the applicants. Hence, it is just necessary to send the above mentioned documents for forensic examination. 2.2. Since the above documents were discovered subsequent to the filing of the proof affidavit, they could not be produced at the time when the suit was filed. Hence, this application has been filed to issue a commission to take these documents to a forensic expert or forensic laboratory for conducting forensic examination on the documents fully described in the schedule appended to the judge''s summons and to issue a commission to a forensic expert or forensic laboratory to conduct forensic examination of the documents more fully described in the schedule appended to the judge''s summons by comparing the actual and forged signatures of the 1st applicant and the han