Timely submission of evidence is crucial in civil proceedings, and failure to act within the prescribed timeframe can lead to dismissal of applications.

JUDGEMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 order in IA No.13 of 2024 in OS No.80 of 2016 dated 19.10.2024 whereby the request of the petitioner seeking production of certain documents from the office of the Consulate General of India, Jeddah has been rejected.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants in OS No.80 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Tirur. The suit is filed for declaration that document No.2838/2011 and subsequent document No.349/2014 and 1817/2015 are void and it does not convey any valid title to defendants 1 to 4 and to cancel the document No. 2838/2011 of SRO, Tirurangadi and for recovery of possession. It is the contention of the petitioner is that the defendants after starting the trial produced the original power of attorney on the strength of which the document in dispute was executed and the petitioner objected and disputed the document as fabricated and falsely created and filed IA No.13 of 2024 calling for document pertaining to the above power of attorney under Rule 120 of Civil Rules of Practice, but the trial court by Ext.P6 order dismissed the said application. It is aggrieved by the same, the present original petition is filed.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the power of attorney was produced at the time of trial and therefore, no delay could be attributable on the petitioner for having filed I.A.No.13 of 2024 belatedly. A perusal of Ext.P6 order would reveal that the present petition has been filed after the closure of the entire evidence. Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2016. A perusal of Ext.P1 plaint in OS No.80 of 2016 would reveal that the documents which is sought to be declared as null and void were executed on the strength of a power of attorney executed by the plaintiff before the Consulate General of India, Jeddah. The specific averment in the plaint is also to the effect that the plaintiff has not gone to the Consulate at all and has not given any power of attorney and the signature available in the power of attorney is also doubtful and that the power of attorney has been fraudulently created. The trial court while passing Ext.P6 order has taken note of the fact that even in Ext.P1 plaint the specific averment of the petitioner is that the power of attorney alleged to have been executed is a fraudulent and fabricated one. Even then the petitioner has not chosen to take any steps to disprove the said power of attorney by adducing any evidence. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the petition could be filed only now cannot be accepted. The trial court has rightly found that the petitioner had got sufficient time to adduce evidence so as to support his contentions specified in the plaint.

The court has also take note of the fact that no objection was raised at the time of marking of the document. The trial court has also take note that no complaint has been filed alleging creation of a false document till date and it is to be noted that in the petition seeking production of documents nothing has been stated as to whether any application has been made at any point of time. The court has entered a finding that the application being filed after the closure of the entire evidence is only to prolong the matter.

4. Taking into consideration the fact that even though the specific contention raised in the plaint itself is that the document was executed using a forged and fraudulent power of attorney, the petitioner has not taken any steps to prove the said contention though the suit was filed as early as in 2016. The present petition has been filed belatedly after the evidence is over. I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order.

Therefore, the original petition is dismissed.