Introduction

[1] This judgment deals with an application made under O 24 r 12 of the Rules of Court 2012 and or under the Court's inherent jurisdiction under O 92 r 4 for the production of 2 promissory notes which the 2nd and 3rd Defendants contended were forged documents ("Enclosure 29").

[2] However, Enclosure 29 was filed after the Plaintiff had obtained summary judgment against the Defendants in reliance on, inter alia, the said promissory notes as admission of liability. At the hearing of the summary judgment, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants did not dispute that they had signed the promissory notes at all. This gave rise to the legal question whether the Defendants were permitted in law to make the application for production of the documents in the circumstances of the case