1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.1397/2008 Poonam Chand Kothari V/'s Smt.Geeta Devi & anr. 3.9.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.J.P.Gupta for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 30th July, 2008 whereby writ application of the appellant was dismissed. Appellant is plaintiff in the suit in which he filed an application for sending the receipt dated 21st September, 2000 produced by the defendant for hand writing expert's opinion. The said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 31st August, 2004. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the aforesaid receipt was filed on 9th Sept.2003 and it was thereafter that he came to know that the receipt was not genuine and did not contain his signatures. The matter was fixed for rebuttal evidence of plaintiff and therefore, there was no delay in filing the application and for the minor delay, defendant could be compensated by award of cost. It was further argued that mere comparison of signatures by court with the admitted signatures of the appellant could not prove genuineness of the receipt. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and also the order of trial court, we find that learned trial court has 2 rejected the application on the premise that written statement was filed by the defendant on 7th July, 2003 and receipt was filed on 1st August, 2003 and the application was filed for sending the receipt for examination by handwriting expert after one year on 20th July, 2004 and that too, after closure of the evidence of both the sides. The learned trial court as also the learned Single Judge of this Court have come to the conclusion that the application was not bonafide and it was intended to delay the trial of the suit. We find that the writ application was filed in 2004 and suit proceedings were stayed till disposal of the writ application through order impugned. Thus, it is clear that the application was not filed immediately after filing of the written statement by the defendant narrating about the receipt and soon thereafter the defendant filed receipt itself. The appellant plaintiff has failed to take due diligence in making the application timely. Application appears to have been filed at a belated stage merely with a view to delaying the trial of the suit. We therefore do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the trial court and also of learned Single Judge of this Court. This appeal accordingly is dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar