Fraud must be supported by substantial evidence indicating intentional deception; mere discrepancies in signatures without further proof do not suffice for contempt or forgery claims.

JUDGMENT :

ANITA SUMANTH, J.

The challenge is to an order passed in three applications on 28.03.2024. The appellant is the plaintiff in C.S.No.536 of 1999 and the applicant in the applications. The prayers in the applications are as follows:-

A.No. 974 of 2024:-

Application praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order to initiate contempt proceedings against the 1^st Respondent for wilfully using false signatures in affidavit in A.No 5583 of 2022 in C.S No 536 of 1999.

A.No 975 of 2024:-

Application praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order to send the signatures of the deponent found in ANo 5583 of 2022 in C.S No 536 of 1999 for comparison by a competent handwriting expert with the signatures of the deponent found in the rejoinder affidavit o the 1st Respondent in A.No 5583 of 2022 in C.S No 536 of 1999 and the signatures of the 1st Respondent found in the deed of relinquishment dated 08.02.2017 registered as document no 506 in the office of the Sub-Registrar V (1) New Delhi and to obtain a report based on such examination.

A.No 976 of 2024:-

Application praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order to compare the signatures of the deponent found in the affidavit filed in support of A.No 5583 of 2022 in C.S No 536 of 1999 with the signatures of the deponent found in the rejoinder affidavit of the 1st respondent in A.No 5583 of 2022 in C.S.No 536 of 1999 and the signatures of the 1st Respondent found in the deed of relinquishment dated 08.02.2017 registered as document no.506 in the office of Sub-Registrar V(1) New Delhi

2. C.S.No. 536 of 1999 had been filed as against a Company and two directors seeking a money decree and costs. The respondents were set exparte vide order dated 16.04.2012 and the Suit ultimately came to be decreed on 26.04.2012 as prayed for. While so, the second respondent (D2 in suit) filed Application No.5583 of 2022 seeking to set aside the exparte decree and judgment. The Application, dated 04.09.2022, was filed belatedly, with a delay of 3784 days.

3. To be noted that that the deponent in that Affidavit was R1 (hereinafter referred to either as R1 or Mr.Samir Suri), and the affidavit was attested by one R.Sivakumar, Advocate, Chennai along with his address and enrolment particulars. The Appellant had filed a Counter to that application on 19.12.2022 seriously objecting to the delay.

4. Inter alia, the Appellant had stated that there was no justification for the enormous delay in filing. They averred that the Suit had been correctly decided, specifically stating that the respondents had evaded service in the suit. According to them, direct service had been effected upon the last known residential address of the second defendant. Substituted service had also been effected upon the second defendant by way of paper publication in the international edition of the Hindu on 28.09.2002.

5. As far as the third respondent is concerned, substituted service was taken by way of paper publication in the Delhi edition of a newspaper and additionally, service was taken in the local edition of the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles edition. Thus, the respondents had been duly served and there was no justification for the belated application for seeking setting aside of the decree and judgement in the Appellants’ favour.

6. A Rejoinder dated 27.12.2022 had been filed by the first respondent, upon receipt of which, the Appellant noticed discrepancies in the signatures in that Rejoinder and in the Application filed seeking condonation of delay of 3784 days. It is thus that