ORDER
K.S. Kumaran, J. (Chairperson)
1. First respondent State Bank of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent Bank) has filed O.A. 190/95 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’) against the appellant (7th defendant in the O.A.; and hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant) and seven others for the recovery of the money allegedly due to it. The appellant filed the Miscellaneous Application 493/2003 for a direction to examine the documents executed by the 5th defendant, including two revival letters dated 26.8.1991 by the expert at Central Forenisc Science Laboratory at Shimla or at any other place. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 5.3.2004, dismissed the said application observing that the application has been filed to prolong the proceedings, that a similar application filed by the 8th defendant was dismissed by the Tribunal on 17.9.2003, and that if the signatures of the 5th defendant had been forged as alleged, then the 5th defendant should have filed the application and not the 7th defendant.
2. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The 1st respondent Bank has filed a reply opposing the appeal, and the appellant has filed a rejoinder to the same.
3. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that as per O.A. the 1st defendant company is the principal borrower while the defendants 2 to 8 are the directors. He also points out that as per the averments in the O.A. the 5th defendant allegedly executed the revival letters dated 26.8.1991. He also points out the averment in the written statement filed by them denying the execution of these revival letters. He, therefore, contends that the two revival letters should be examined by the Hand Writing Expert for opinion. But, the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank contends that though the written statement purports to have been filed on behalf of the defendants 1, 5, 7 and 8, the 5th defendant has not signed the same. He also contends that the 5th defendant had not filed any application to examine these two revival letters by an expert, (if really they were fabricated documents). The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank also contends that the 8th defendant, who is the wife of the 7th defendant, had filed a similar application, and that the same was also dismissed on 17.9.2003. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank contends that on an earlier application (I.A. 753/2002) the DRT passed orders on 24.7.2003 directing the 5th defendant to be present for giving the signatures in the presence of the Tribunal, before making any order on that application, but, the 5th defendant did not appear, and, ultimately, the application was dismissed on 17.9.2003. He also contends that either the appellant (7th defendant) or the 8th defendant has been filed one application or other for the purpose of delaying the matter and their intention is only to protract the proceedings. He points out that I.A. 752/2002 filed by the 8th defendant for cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent Bank was also dismissed, and an earlier application 37/2002 for similar relief was also dismissed.
5. But, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that I.A. 753/2002 filed by the 8th defendant is for allowing her to file the Hand Writing Expert’s opinion, and not for sending the document for expert opinion. He also contends that the dismissal of that application cannot bar the 7th defendant from requesting the DRT to direct the examination of the revival letters in question stated to have been executed by the 5th defendant by an expert from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Shimla or any other place. He also contends that the 7th defendant is not responsible for the delay, and the purpose of the appellant 7th defendant is not to drag on the proceedings. He also points out certain orders passed by the DRT in support of his contention.
6. Whatever it be, the fact that the application filed by the 8th defendant was dismissed or that some other applications were also filed by the defendants cannot stand in the way of the request of the appellant being allowed. Of course, the 5th defendant does not seem to have appeared before the DRT, but a letter stated to have been written by her to her Advocate stating that the signatures in the revival letters are not her signatures has been placed on the records of the DRT. Therefore, if the liability is sought to be fastened on the appellant on the basis of the revival letters stated to have been executed by the 5th defendant, the appellant is entitled to move an application for getting the alleged signatures of the 5th defendant examined by a Hand Writing Expert. The fact that some more applications were filed by the defendants also cannot militate against the case of appellant. Therefore, I am of the view that the disputed signatures of the 5th defendant have to be examined by the Hand Writing Expert for opinion. If the 5th defendant does not appear before the DRT for giving her specimen signatures for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures, the document/documents containing the signatures of the 5th defendant, which are not disputed, can be compared and examined with the disputed signatures. As per the averments in the O.A., the defendants 2 to 8 are stated to have executed the deed of guarantee. Therefore, I am of the view that the appeal has to succeed, and the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer has to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 5.3.2004. The application filed by the appellant for examination and comparison of the disputed signatures of the 5th defendant in the two revival letters dated 26.8.1991 by the Hand Writing Expert, either from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Shimla or at any other place, will stand allowed. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT shall allow the disputed signatures of the 5th defendant found in the revival letters dated 26.8.1991 examined and compared by the Hand Writing Expert at Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Shimla or at any other place, and get the opinion of the expert.
8. Copy of this order be furnished to both sides.