The court emphasized the right to a fair defense, allowing expert examination of disputed documents to avoid miscarriage of justice.

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A. No. 4 of 2024 in O.S. No.

549 of 2019, on the file of the III Additional District Court, Coimbatore, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant.

2. Before the trial Court, the revision petitioner/defendant filed an application to send the promissory note for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. On hearing the objections raised by both sides, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition holding that the suit has been pending from the year 2019 and that the defendant had filed her written statement only in the year 2022. The trial Court further observed that the application was filed belatedly at the stage of the defendant’s evidence and therefore was not inclined to allow the petition. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that at the time of filing the written statement, the defendant had specifically contended that she was not aware of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff, in collusion with one Manickam, had manipulated the documents. She had also denied her signature in the promissory note. In order to prove the same, she had filed the present application seeking expert opinion. However, the Court below failed to appreciate the said contention and therefore he prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent raised strong objections stating that in paragraph No. 12 of the written statement, the defendant had admitted her signature and had contended only that the blank document was given for security purposes. Therefore, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application. He further submitted that the defendant had not taken any steps before the commencement of the trial and had filed the present application only after the completion of the plaintiff’s evidence, with the intention of dragging on the proceedings. The trial Court had rightly considered these aspects and dismissed the application. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition as devoid of merits.

5. On considering the submissions made on either side and on perusing the entire defence set out in the written statement, it is seen that the revision petitioner/defendant has pleaded that her husband had financial transactions with one Manikkam and that the said Manikkam, in collusion with the plaintiff, has created a false case by misusing the document which was allegedly given at the time of availing a loan. She has specifically stated that she has not signed the promissory note and that the same has been manipulated by the plaintiff and the said Manikkam. She has further contended that the said Manikkam is a “Kandhu Vatti” Manikkam and that he, in collusion with the plaintiff, has come forward with a false claim.

6. Considering the above submissions, if an opportunity is not given to the defendant to prove her defence, her valuable right to defend the case would be defeated. Even at the time of filing the written statement, she has stated that she was not aware of the plaintiff and was also not aware of the alleged promissory note. Though the petition has been filed after the completion of the plaintiff’s evidence, in order to avoid miscarriage of justice and to prevent further multiplicity of proceedings, this Court is inclined to set aside the findings of the trial Court.

7. Accordingly, the petition filed in I.A. No. 4 of 2024 is ordered to be allowed. The revision petitioner/defendant is directed to produce the relevant documents for comparison of the sign