Nachhattar Singh and another vs M/s Dhanna Ram Amit Kumar and others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana, thereby dismissing plaintiffs'' application for additional evidence.

Plaintiffs have filed suit against respondents for recovery of money.

Defendants denied writing/receipt dated 29.10.2004, which according to plaintiffs, had been signed by defendant no. 2 Kamaljeet. Plaintiffs, in their evidence, examined handwriting expert to compare the disputed signatures of defendant no. 2 on the said writing with his specimen signatures, but the handwriting expert was unable to give appropriate opinion on account of the fact that the specimen signatures were intentionally distorted by defendant no. 2.

Plaintiffs alleged in their application Annexure P-1 that now it has come to their notice that defendants had filed an appeal (in another lis) in the court of Additional District Judge and in the said appeal, defendants had engaged Mr. S.S. Randhawa and Mr. Harinderpal Singh, Advocates by executing Vakalatnama in their favour. The said Vakalatnama was put to defendant no. 2 in his cross-examination, who denied his signatures thereon. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought permission to examine Mr. Harinderpal Singh, Advocate and document expert Mr. Inderjit, by way of additional evidence.

Defendants, by filing reply Annexure P-2, resisted the aforesaid application.

Learned trial court, vide impugned order Annexure P-3, dismissed the plaintiffs'' application for additional evidence. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

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

Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the trial court has erroneously observed in the impugned order that the other litigation, in which there is Vakalatnama allegedly signed by defendant no. 2, was also between the same parties, although in fact, plaintiffs herein are not party to the said litigation and thus, the impugned order is erroneous and unsustainable.

Counsel for the respondents contended that the said other litigation was also in the knowledge of the plaintiffs, and therefore, the application for additional evidence has been rightly dismissed.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

The other litigation arose out of suit titled Ram Sarup Vs. M/s Dhanna Ram Amit Kumar etc. Present plaintiffs were not party to the said litigation. However, learned trial court in the impugned order observed that the said litigation was also between the same parties. This ground observed by the trial court to dismiss the plaintiffs'' application is thus factually incorrect and has therefore vitiated the impugned order.

It is not uncommon that a person, while giving specimen signatures, may intentionally distort his signatures. In this case, defendant no. 2 allegedly did so. Now, his alleged standard signatures are said to be available on Vakalatnama in the other appeal. Consequently, defendants would not suffer, if prayer of plaintiffs for additional evidence is allowed, on payment of cost. Defendants would get opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal of additional evidence of plaintiffs. Moreover, it is the suit of plaintiffs themselves, which is being delayed. Defendants would not suffer by the delay, which would be caused by production of additional evidence.

In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiffs have made out a good case for granting them permission to lead additional evidence on payment of cost. Impugned order of the trial court suffers from jurisdictional error and is based on factually incorrect observation.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-3 passed by the trial court is set aside. Application Annexure P-1 moved by the plaintiffs is allowed and plaintiffs are permitted to lead the proposed additional evidence, subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as cost precedent. Defendants shall also be given reasonable opportunity to lead their evidence in rebuttal of additional evidence of the plaintiffs.