As regards C.R.P.No.2434 of 2012, it is no doubt true that the Court below had rejected I.A.No.115 of 2012 filed by the petitioner/defendant on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless the plaintiff establishes his case by examining witnesses, the defendant need not adduce evidence to rebut the case of plaintiff, and that the application per se, which was filed immediately after the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was closed, could not be said to be belated. However, I am in complete agreement with the order of the Court below in so far as it held that the signatures on documents such as counter, vakalat and written statement cannot be considered as contemporary signatures as there was a possibility of putting signatures in disguise in view of the possible defence to be taken. As regards ration card on which the petitioner wants to rely for the purpose of comparison, admittedly, it was not filed along with the written statement and it was filed along with I.A.No.89 of 2012 by the petitioner. Since I.A.No.89 of 2012 has been dismissed by the Court below and its order is upheld in C.R.P.No.2366 of 2012, there is no question of comparing petitioner’s signature on the ration card with the signature on the suit promissory note by an expert.
