Unchallenged handwriting-expert evidence established forgery, warranting declaration and cancellation of the documents.

The plaintiffs sued for declarations that documents listed in Exhibit “AA” were forged, fabricated, invalid and void ab initio, and sought their delivery and cancellation.

The suit proceeded ex parte or undefended against Defendants 1–11 and 16; the principal contesting defendants had not filed written statements.

The plaintiffs’ witness gave evidence concerning the documents and alleged fabrications.

On the Court’s direction, a handwriting expert compared disputed signatures with admitted signatures and reported that they were of different authorship; the defendants did not object to the reports.

The plaintiffs pressed only prayers (a) and (b) against Defendants 1–7. They sought no relief against Defendants 12–14, and submitted that the Registrar of Companies (Defendant 15) had already complied with the relevant interim directions.

1. Whether the plaintiffs had established that the documents in Exhibit “AA” were forged or fabricated and were entitled to declarations and cancellation relief

2. Whether the Court could decree the suit against defendants who had not filed written statements, and whether the pleaded facts required proof notwithstanding their non-denial

Order VIII Rule 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that factual allegations not specifically denied, denied by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted may be treated as admitted. Under Rule 5(2), where a defendant has not filed a written statement, the Court may pronounce judgment on the facts in the plaint; however, it retains discretion to require those facts to be proved.

The Court applied Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396, which explains that non-filing of a written statement permits, but does not compel, judgment on the plaint and that the Court may require proof of pleaded facts

The Court did not rely solely on the defendants’ failure to file written statements. It considered the plaintiffs’ pleadings and PW-1’s evidence, and appointed a handwriting expert because it was not appropriate for the Court to reach a conclusive view from ocular comparison alone

The expert reported that the disputed signatures on the documents examined differed in authorship from the admitted signatures, identifying specific dissimilarities; the Court also noted that no defendant challenged the reports

On this evidence, and applying the discretion recognised under Order VIII Rule 5(2), the Court found the relevant allegations proved and considered declaratory and cancellation relief appropriate

The suit stood disposed of against the other defendants in view of the plaintiffs’ submissions, including that no relief was pressed against Defendants 12–14 and that Defendant 15 had complied with the relevant interim directions

The drawn-up decree was dispensed with because the suit was instituted in 2015