C.R. No. 3335 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3335 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 3.3.2009
Ram Kumar
.. Petitioner
v.
M/s Dhingra Trading Company
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate for the respondent.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.5.2008,
passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the
respondent-plaintiff for additional evidence, was accepted.
Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for
recovery of Rs. 1,15,384/- along with interest with the plea that the petitioner-
defendant used to borrow the money from the respondent-plaintiff. Part of that
amount was returned. However, partly the amount remained due for which the suit
for recovery was filed. The trial court dismissed the suit considering that the
signatures on the documents produced by the respondent-plaintiff in support of the
claim were denied by the petitioner-defendant. In appeal, the respondent-plaintiff
filed an application for additional evidence for getting the signatures of the
petitioner-defendant examined from a handwriting expert. The application having
been allowed, the petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by way of
application for additional evidence, the respondent-plaintiff should not be
permitted to fill up the lacuna in evidence. Before the trial court, he had ample
opportunity to get the signatures compared after the same were denied by the
petitioner, but the respondent-plaintiff failed to exercise that option and any
application for leading additional evidence for getting the signatures compared
was not maintainable at the appellate stage.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
C.R. No. 3335 of 2008 [2]
no illegality as such has been committed by the learned court below in allowing the
application filed by the respondent-plaintiff for the reason that even the court
could always itself compare the signatures. No prejudice as such has been caused
to the petitioner in case he is sticking to his stand that he had not signed the
documents produced by the respondent-plaintiff in support of his claim.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit
in the present petition. Vide impugned order, the learned court below had merely
permitted the respondent to get the signatures of the petitioner on the documents
produced by him compared with the specimen signatures furnished by him in the
Court. No illegality has been committed by the learned court below in observing
that even the court could itself compare the signatures. It is for the assistance of
the court that report has been sought, which may not be binding on the court as
such. If for the purpose of arriving at a just conclusion in the case, the learned
court below has sought opinion of a handwriting expert, the discretion exercised
by the learned court below cannot be faulted with.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
3.3.2009
mnk