A Dubai court has dismissed a forgery lawsuit filed by two Arab nationals challenging a promissory note worth Dh2.2 million, ruling that the case lacked seriousness and legal interest.
The claimants alleged that the original value of the note had been altered by adding extra zeros in ink different from the rest of the document, inflating the amount from Dh200,000 to more than Dh2 million. They asked the court to compel the defendants to produce the original promissory note and to refer it to Dubai Police’s forensic laboratory to examine the ink, additions, and the authenticity of the signature and recorded data.
However, the Dubai Court of First Instance ruled the case inadmissible after reviewing the pleadings.
In its judgment, the court said the forgery claim was brought in relation to a promissory note that had already been relied upon in ongoing legal proceedings. It noted that allegations of forgery in such circumstances should be raised as a defense before the court handling the main dispute, rather than through a separate lawsuit.
The dispute traces back to debt rescheduling agreements concluded in 2016 and 2018 over the construction of residential rooms on designated land plots. Under the agreements, debts exceeding Dh11.4 million were to be settled through 24 equal cheques. The claimants alleged the defendants later defaulted, prompting legal action and the appointment of an accounting expert.
During expert proceedings in an earlier case, the plaintiffs said they were surprised when a photocopy of the Dh2.2 million promissory note was submitted, leading them to deny its authenticity and challenge it as a forgery while seeking production of the original document for forensic examination.
The defendants countered that the case was inadmissible against some of them for lack of standing and unfounded in law, saying they only held a carbon copy of the note and that the original document was in the possession of the claimants themselves.
The court also noted that the plaintiffs had acknowledged the authenticity of the signature on the promissory note, which under the law implies the validity of its contents unless alteration or erasure is proven. It said there was no convincing evidence of tampering, particularly as the defendants did not have custody of the original document.
Concluding that the forgery challenge lacked seriousness and that the claimants had no legal interest in compelling the production of a document not held by the defendants, the court dismissed the case and ordered the plaintiffs to pay court fees and expenses.
