Malkiat Singh vs Doonger Kumar

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.11.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Abohar whereby application moved by the respondent-plaintiff for examination of handwriting expert has been allowed. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 3,36,950/- (Rs. 2,30,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 1,06,950/- as interest) along with future interest @ 18% per annum. It is the case of the respondent that on 6.12.2006, the petitioner-defendant obtained a loan of Rs. 2,30,000/- from him and executed pronote and receipt in his favour.

The petitioner-defendant in his written statement denied the execution of alleged pronote and receipt in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

The respondent-plaintiff led affirmative evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant led his evidence. While the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, the respondent moved application for examining handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence on issue No. 1. The said application has been allowed by the trial Court by impugned order dated 14.11.2012 (Annexure P-5). Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the parties state that the trial Court has framed the issues which are re-produced as under:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 3,36,950/- along with interest as prayed for? OPP

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation? OPP

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and patent facts from this Court? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his acts and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

Relief.

The petitioner-defendant in his evidence got the alleged pronote and receipt examined through handwriting expert. The said witness was also cross-examined by the plaintiff through his handwriting expert. The respondent-plaintiff in rebuttal evidence wanted to examine handwriting expert to prove that signatures/thumb impressions on the pronote and receipt tallied with the admitted signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioner-defendant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the respondent-plaintiff cannot be permitted to examine handwriting expert regarding signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioner on the alleged pronote and receipt because the said witness relates to issue No. 1 of which the onus was on the respondent. In order to buttress his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon judgments of this Court in Surjit Singh and Others Vs. Jagtar Singh and Others, and Jagdev Singh and Others Vs. Darshan Singh and Others, On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has vehemently contended that the respondent has led evidence in order to discharge his initial onus as has been placed upon him. When the case was fixed for petitioner-defendant''s evidence in order to rebut the evidence so led by the respondent, the petitioner has specifically examined handwriting expert who has suffered his statement in support of claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel has further contended that by examining handwriting expert, the respondent wanted to compare the signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioner on the pronote and receipt with his admitted signatures/thumb impressions.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent-plaintiff may be allowed to examine the handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence. The petitioner-defendant examined handwriting expert in support of his case. The respondent-plaintiff wants to examine the handwriting expert in order to tally the signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioner-defendant with his admitted signatures/thumb impressions. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are found distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The respondent-plaintiff wants to examine the handwriting expert in order to tally the signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioner-defendant with his admitted signatures/thumb impressions.

In view of this, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 14.11.2012 (Annexure P-5). Dismissed.