JUDGMENT
S.K. Gupta, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.04.2002 propounded by the learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases) Srinagar, whereby the application of the petitioner-defendant for referring the signatures of the defendant on D.P. note dated 16.08.1993 and on application dated 24.12.1988 to some expert for his opinion, was dismissed.
2. It appears that in a suit by the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, that culminated to the stage of plaintiffs evidence after the filing of the written statement, and on framing the issues consistent with the contents and contour of their pleadings, an application came to be initiated by the petitioner-defendant for referring the signatures, on the D.P. note and on the application, to some handwriting expert for his opinion, alongwith her admitted signatures in alleging that the signatures on the aforesaid two documents having been attributed to her which in fact were not signatures. The Bank, however, resisted the application of the petitioner-defendant on the ground that the defendant having not taken any such plea with regard to the forgery of her signatures on the D.P. note and on the application in her written statement, no evidence can be allowed to be created at this stage. It was further pointed out that in reply to para 7 of the plaint, the execution of the debt confirmation having not been denied specifically, and the same amount is stated to having been admitted by the defendant. It was further contended that neither the D.P. note nor the letter dated 24.12.1988 pertaining to the debt confirmation have been disputed in the written statement and in such an event, the application cannot be allowed. The trial court, after hearing the parties and going through the pleadings and record of the file, found that no such question has been put to the witnesses examined by the plaintiff with regard to the genuineness of the documents in cross examination. This stand having been taken by the petitioner-defendant without any justification, at this stage, renders the application untenable, both legally and factually, and the application was, accordingly, dismissed on 19.4.2003, which became the subject matter of challenge in this revision.
3. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and considered the rival contentions in context with the material available on record, touching the matter in controversy meticulously.
4. The admitted facts emerging from record in this case are, that there is not a whisper in the written statement filed by the defendant that her signatures on the D.P. note dated 16.8.1999 and on the application dated 24.12.1988 are forged or the documents have been got executed from her fraudulently nor she has taken a plea in the written statement that the plaintiff obtained her signatures on blank papers, about which she did not know being an illiterate lady. It was also her stand that she did not execute the documents voluntarily and was requested to sign the papers. These documents obviously include the D.P. note and the balance confirmation letter to have been executed by the defendant. This manifestly shows that the plea raised by the petitioner-defendant in her application was extremely contrary to the stand taken by her in the written statement.
5. Mr. B. A. Bashir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, vehemently urged that the petitioner she had never been confronted with the documents in question till the filing of the application by her before the trial court seeking referring of both these documents to the handwriting expert for his opinion with regard to the signatures of the defendant. He further submitted that the preliminary statement of the defendant was not recorded which in fact was an opportunity which she could avail to see the documents and also at the time of admission or denial of such documents when the defendant could have denied her signatures on D.P. note and on balance confirmation letter. He also submitted that copies of annexures were not supplied to him alongwith the plaint which came in his way in taking the plea of signatures of the defendant having been forged on the D.P. note and on the debt confirmation letter.
6. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, record of the trial court was perused and it was found that on 14.10.2000 the parties were not present for recording their preliminary statement and the counsel appearing for the defendant stated that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no need to record the preliminary statement of the parties and, for that matter, no admission on record needs to be recorded on the documents filed by the parties. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the court in presence of the parties, the plea put across by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is neither factually nor legally tenable. The court had given him full opportunity to take any further plea in the preliminary statement and go for admission or denial of the documents which having been declined at that time, cannot now been allowed to be raised in this revision, to support his contention in the application. It is further pertinent to point out that the plaintiff has produced witnesses and recorded their statements, but no such question has been put to them in cross examination pertaining to the genuineness of the documents and her signatures appended on it.
7. It is well settled proposition of law that a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence beyond pleadings and even if any such evidence has been led by the parties, that cannot be looked into by the court. The case is pending before the trial court at the stage of recording the plaintiffs evidence and at this stage, no such application by the defendant, is tenable in the absence of any such plea taken in the written statement, particularly when the defendant is yet to lead her evidence. I do not find any infirmity, legal or factual in the impugned order, and the view expressed by the trial court is the view in which no exception can be taken.
8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any merit in this revision and the same is accordingly dismissed.
9. Record shall be remitted back to the trial court. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 17.12.2003 to lead evidence.
10. However, Mr. Bashir Ahmad Bashir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a time barred claim is sought to be revived through extraneous method on the basis of documents and the suit is required to be dismissed in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in case entitled State Bank of India v. Hari Dutt Sharma, AIR 2003 JK 57. He also submitted that the acknowledgement of liability cannot be within substantive period of limitation. This plea, however, cannot be considered in this revision and the party is at liberty to take it before the trial court at an appropriate stage.
