Rajinder Singh Chawla vs Vivek Ahluwalia

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been maintained by the petitioner, against the order dated 23.09.2016, passed

by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Suit, RBT No. 342/II/10, whereby an application filed by the petitioner, under

Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been dismissed.

Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter to be called as “the plaintiffâ€) filed a suit for

recovery of Rs. 38,000/-and Rs. 13,300/- as interest @ 12 % per annum w.e.f. 07.04.2007 to 02.03.2010 and future interest @ 12% per annum

against the respondent/defendant (hereinafter to be called as “the defendantâ€). During the pendency of the suit an application, under Section 73 of

the Indian Evidence Act has been moved by the plaintiff for comparison of handwriting of the defendant and his special attorney/father Sh. Ved

Parkash Ahluwalia, on the ground that as the documents Mark X, Y and Z are bearing writing of the defendant and his father/special attorney, the

same deserves to be got compared with their handwriting for effective adjudication of the controversy of the case.

The defendant, by filing reply contested the application on the ground that the same is not maintainable, as comparison of handwriting of defendant

and his father with the disputed handwriting has no bearing on the outcome of the case. Lastly, a prayer for dismissal of the application alongwith

costs has been made by the defendant.

Learned Court below, vide order dated 23.09.2016, dismissed the application of the plaintiff, hence the present petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the learned Court below is without appreciating the facts, as well as without

the application of mind, thus the same deserves to be set aside and the present petition deserves to be allowed. On the other hand, learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that the learned Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, as

he has failed to bring anything on record which could suggest that as to how the comparison of handwriting is essential to decide the controversy in the

suit.

To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the record in detail.

Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:

“73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.- In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of

the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have

been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been

produced or proved for any other purpose.

The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures

so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.

It has come in the statement of PW-1 that the documents X, Y and Z bear the writing of the defendant and his father/special attorney and plaintiff

wants to get those documents compared. The purpose of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act is to bring truth before the Court. Accordingly, the

right of the party to bring truth before the Court cannot be taken away for mere technicalities. There is nothing on record to conclude that the

application has been made with some ulterior motive. The plaintiff only wants to get handwriting of the defendant and his father compared with their

admitted handwriting.

This Court finds that if the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff is allowed, the same will propagate the justice. Accordingly, the present petition is

allowed and impugned order is set aside by directing the defendant/respondent and his father/special attorney to give their handwritings in the learned

Court below for comparison with the disputed entries in the documents Mark X, Y and Z to meet the ends of justice. Parties through their counsel are

directed to appear before the learned Court below on 13th August, 2018.

The petition, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.