M. K. Chawla ( 1 ) THE present Execution First Appeal is directedagainst the Judgment of the Additional District Judge, dated 6/02/1989whereby the attached goods assest, and properties of the Judgment-debtor (Appellant before this Court) have been directed to be auctioned andthe sale proceeds to be given to the decree-holder in satisfaction of thedecretal amount, and if the sale proceeds of the auctioned goods are notfound sufficient to meet the amount of the decree of Rs. 72,537-62?. , withcosts and interest at the rate of 12 per annum on this amount from the dateon 14. 7. 86 till its realisation, then the Judkgment-debtor be detained in civilprison. ( 2 ) THE only question that revolves round for determination is thesubject-matter of issue no. 2 which reads as under : "whether Raju Anand, Judgment debtor has made the paymentof Rs. 72. 53762p. to Shri Krishan Chander, attorney of thedecreeholder ? " ( 3 ) THE controvertial document is the receipt Ex. JDW 1/1 by whichthe Judgment-debtor is alleged to have made the payment of the amount ofthe decree in cash, whereas there is a complete denial of the executionand receipt of any amount by Shri Krishan Chander, General Attorneyof the decreeholder. ( 4 ) BOTH the parties agr that during the course of the executionproceedings in court of Shri J. P. Singh, Additional District Judge Delhi on 14. 7. 86,mr. Saiful Islam, Advocate of the Judgment-debtor, informed the court thathis client was willing to make full papment of the amount of the decree. Herequested the court to call upon the general attorney who was present incourt, to let him know the actual details of the amounts due from thejudgment-debtor till that date. On the asking of the court, the attorney ofthe decreeholder recoreded all the amounts due from the Judgment-debtoron a piece of paper and after putting his signautre, banded over the sameto the court. After going through it, the learned Judge passed on that pieceof document to Shri Saiful Islam, Advocate, who kept the same with him. So far so good. Then there are two rival versions, as to how this documentreached the Judgment-debtor. A this stage, there is no need to go into thesefacts. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the Judgment-debtor that at about 5 P. M. on 4/07/1986, be contacted his counsel at his Connaught Place office andcollected the document. After. So far so good. Then there are two rival versions, as to how this documentreached the Judgment-debtor. A this stage, there is no need to go into thesefacts. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the Judgment-debtor that at about 5 P. M. on 4/07/1986, be contacted his counsel at his Connaught Place office andcollected the document. After. spending about 5 to 7 minutes, he went tothe house of Shri Krishan Chander in a three-wheeler scooter and foundhim standing at the gate. He requested Krishan Chander to collect the wholeof the account of the decrees from his house. Krishan Chander, according tothe Judgment-debtor, reached his house, all alone at about 5. 30 P. M. At thattime, S/shri D. C. Sharina and Desh Bandbu Marwah were already present. The Judgment-debtor then paid the amount in cash and he got executed thereceipt. The alleged receipt was then got attested by the two witnessespresent there. Krishan Chander left the house of the Judgment-debtor withthe money by about 5. 40 P. M. ( 6 ) THE case of Krishan Chander is that he did write the documentex. JDW I/i giving the details of the amounts due from the Judgment-debtor and gave the same to the Judge who, in turn, handed it over to Saifulislam, Advocate. According to him, thereafter neither the Judgment-debtorever met him nor be went to his house as alleged. At no point of time,he was paid or be received any amount. The Judgment debtor in fact hasconverted the document into a receipt by committing forgery. ( 7 ) IN order to prove the receipt, the Judgment debtor appeared ashis own witness and examined two attesting witnesses and a handwritingexpert, whereas Krishan Chander appeared as his own witness and producedshri R. P. Singh handwriting expert. ( 8 ) NOW the receipt. The portions encircled red from B to B-1, D-l ande-l on the rcceipt JDW1/1 are admittedly in the handwriting of Krishanchander. Portion marked B to B I mentions the details of the amount duecourtwise together with the total amount due in each of these courts. Theportion encircled B-1 contains the signature of Krishan Chander with date,whereas the encircled portion D-l mentions the respective totals and thegrand total of the amount due from the Judgment-debtor. At F-1 and G-lare the signature of the two attesting witnesses. The dispute relate to theencircled portion C to C-l containing the words received Cash". Theportion encircled B-1 contains the signature of Krishan Chander with date,whereas the encircled portion D-l mentions the respective totals and thegrand total of the amount due from the Judgment-debtor. At F-1 and G-lare the signature of the two attesting witnesses. The dispute relate to theencircled portion C to C-l containing the words received Cash". ( 9 ) ACCORDING to Krishan Chander, these words are not in his handwhereas the Judgment debtor insists that the words "received cash" werewritten by Krishan Chander in his presence. Let me first resolve this controversy. For the present, I only intend to refer and weigh the evidence ofthe so-called handwriting experts. Then I will express my own opinion onthe receipt JDW 1/1. ( 10 ) MRS. R. K. Vij (JDW-3) is the handwriting expert for thejudgment-debtor. In her opinion, the disputed encircled writing marked C toc-l on the document Ex. JDW I/i is the genuine writing executed by Shrikrishan Chander, the writer of the comparative writings under reference,including the other writing no the document Ex. JDW I/i. In cross-examination, she however, failed to sticks to her opinion by admitting. "i have not examined whether the ink used in the disputed writingc to C-l is the same as is used in the other admitted writings onthe same document or not. The Instrument used i. e, the writingpen which is used in writing the disputed writing is different fromthe same used in the other admitted writing on the same document. It is correct that the ink used in the disputed writing encircled andmarked C to C-l on Ex. JWD 1/1 is different from the same used inthe admitted writings, on the same document. " ( 11 ) LATER on, she agreed with the observations made in para-a of theopinion marked "b" in Ex. DHW-1/8 filed by Shri R. P. Singh, the handwriting expert, produced by the decree-holder. Para-a reads as under :- "a) An inter-se comparative examination of the ink and pen usedin the disputed writing encircled in portion marked C to Cl inrelation to other body writing of this document, clearly shows atotal and complete difference in them. Although the whole writingis made in ball-pen, but the ink of pen used in portion C to Cl haslighter tin and shade of blue colour, but that in the other portion. the colour of ink is of darker shade and tint of dark blue complexion. Although the whole writingis made in ball-pen, but the ink of pen used in portion C to Cl haslighter tin and shade of blue colour, but that in the other portion. the colour of ink is of darker shade and tint of dark blue complexion. The writing point of pen used in portion C to C1 is more sharpfrom that used in the remaining body writing of this document Ex. JWD-1/1. This total difference in the writing instrument involvedin between encircled writing mark C to Cl, from the other part oflhe body writing of this document Ex. JWD 1/1 clearly shows thatportion mark C to Cl is a latter addition, made separated from therest of the writing. "the two vital admissions of Mrs R. K. Vij not only altogether wipe out heropinion but confirm the report of Shri Singh, that the disputed writingmarked C to Cl on Ex. JWD 1/1 differs from the comparative admitted andsample writings marked A-18. A-20 and S-1 to S-10 and is, therefore, notwritten in the hand writing of the same person. This evidence, by itself, isenough to prove that the so called receipt was a forged document, and infact nothing was paid to the decreeholder. ( 12 ) THE other infirmities which have come on record and throw doubton the genuineness of this receipt are such which by themselves demolish thestand of the Judgment-debtor. The attesting witnesses have been proved tobe at the back and call of the Jadgment debtor. According to the Judgmentdebtor Shri Raju Anand, Shri D. C. Sharma is his part-time Accountantwhereas Shri Desh Bandhu Marwah is distantly related to him Theirevidence as such is not worth reliance. ( 13 ) THERE is no convincing explanation from the Judgment debtor asto why the signature of Krishan Chander was not obtained on the revenuestamp if it had been affixed and crossed by Krishan Chander himself. Relevant part of this evidence is in the cross-examination of the Judgment-debtor. It reads as under : - "revenue stamp was sent for after the execution of the receipt. Ihad sent my son to fetch a revenue stamp and it was affixed afterthe receipt had been executed. The revenue stamp was executed byshri Krishan Chander. Sbri Krishan Chander had put a cross onthe revenue stamp. I did not bother to have his signatures on therevenue stamp because be bad already signed in full. Ihad sent my son to fetch a revenue stamp and it was affixed afterthe receipt had been executed. The revenue stamp was executed byshri Krishan Chander. Sbri Krishan Chander had put a cross onthe revenue stamp. I did not bother to have his signatures on therevenue stamp because be bad already signed in full. ( 14 ) SHRI Raju Anand is frank enough to admit that the decreesmentioned in JWD1/1 relate to arrears of rent and that he had never paidany amount to Shri Krishan Chander unless there was execution proceedingsand attachment warrants issued, except the present amount of Rs. 72537 62p. admittedly, he is on litigation with the decreeholder for the last many yearsand being a shrewd man, he would have taken precautions not to be paysuch a huge amount in cash without obtaining a proper receipt. There is noworthwhile explanation to this. ( 15 ) OTHERWISE also it is just not possible for Krishan Chander, whohad recently undergone an eye operation, to count such a huge amount in5 to 10 minutes and to execute the receipt. ( 16 ) I have earefully examined the receipt, from the naked eye, it cansafely be inferred that the words "received cash" encircled in portion C toc-l have been squeezed in by somebody in between the grand total and thesignature of Krishan Chander in a different ink and handwriting Thisdocument is executed on an ordinary rough paper which normally would not have been used for preparing such like valuable documents. ( 17 ) BESIDES that DW. 2 Shri D. C. Sharma, the attesting witness who was produced to prove the execution of the receipt did not trun up for his cross-examination, Admittedly, he was the Accountant of the Judgment-debtor and was required to make the statemnt on the basis of the books of accounts. Though he brought the books of accounts but failed to come forward to subject himself to the cross-examination, ( 18 ) ALL these facts taken together leave no doubt in my mind that the Judgment debtor has tried his level best to get out of the liability by forging the receipt but miserably failed to prove the same. I do not find any sub-stance in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limini.