Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1779 (PNJ)

Sukhdev Singh v. Jarnail Singh

2014-12-19

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2014
JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - Even though arguments have been heard in all the three revision petitions separately on the asking of the counsel for the respondent which was not opposed by the petitioners, claiming that the matter in dispute in all the three revision petitions was separate but after hearing the counsel for the parties, it has been found that the parties in all the three matters are the same and even the matters are closely connected with each other and thus, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For convenience and clarity, facts have been taken from CR No.1967 of 2012. This civil revision petition filed by the defendants, petitioners herein, is directed against order dated 28.2.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the lower court whereby the application (Annexure P-5) for allowing applicant-defendant Sukhdev Singh for giving his writing and signatures in the court in the presence of handwriting and fingerprints expert for the purpose of comparison of disputed handwriting and signatures on receipt Ex.P1, has been dismissed. 3. A suit was preferred by plaintiff Jarnail Singh, respondent herein against M/s Jang Singh and Company through its partner Sukhdev Singh, the defendants, petitioners herein, for recovery of Rs.2,50,588/- (Rs.1,94,254/- as principal amount and Rs.56,334/- as interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1.12.2004 to 1.5.2007) was filed. The suit was based on a receipt regarding sale of crop by the plaintiff, respondent herein, at the shop of the defendants which document was denied in its execution by the defendants making allegations that the said document of 1.12.2004 was false and fabricated and had been prepared by the plaintiff in collusion with the witnesses. In short, defendant No.1 in the suit (petitioner No.1 herein) had categorically denied the signatures on the said writing. 4. To prove that the said writing had not been executed by him and signatures thereon were never appended by him, by way of application (Annexure P-5), defendant Sukhdev Singh sought permission to give his specimen signatures before the court in the presence of handwriting and fingerprints expert to enable the said expert to compare his signatures which request was strongly resisted by the plaintiff. After hearing the parties, finding no merit therein, the application was dismissed by the lower court. 5. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the paper books. 6. After hearing the parties, finding no merit therein, the application was dismissed by the lower court. 5. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the paper books. 6. Counsel for the petitioners-defendants has urged that to prove that the document is false, fabricated and is forged one, there is no other method by which the petitioners can prove the document to be forged. 7. Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, on the other hand, has urged that the defendants want to create evidence in their favour and thus, are trying to mislead the court and the application was rightly rejected by the lower court. 8. It is not disputed that the writing in dispute has been propounded by the respondent-plaintiff. Once this document has not been admitted and has, rather, been denied vociferously, it is for the respondent-plaintiff to prove the said document to have been genuinely executed by defendant Sukhdev Singh. 9. In this backdrop, the application of defendant Sukhdev Singh is nothing but a clever move to manipulate the evidence in his favour. The court has nowhere denied him the opportunity to prove the disputed document to be forged or fabricated as claimed by him but the methodology which the defendant wanted to adopt, has been disallowed to him. Defendant No.1 Sukhdev Singh (petitioner No.1 herein) wanted to give his signatures in the presence of the court to the handwriting and fingerprints expert for comparison of the same with the signatures on the disputed document. This procedure is not permissible in law. 10. The concerned defendant may get his signatures of yesteryears, when the dispute was not even pending between the parties, to be produced from the relevant source and then signatures on the disputed writing can be compared by the handwriting and fingerprints expert. The petitioners-defendants may use any other methodology legally permissible to sustain their plea of denial of signatures on the relevant document. The case is pending for evidence of the defendants since long. Last opportunity had already been granted to the defendants but they did not come forward with production of the evidence. In these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.2.2012 (Annexure P-6) of the lower court. 11. The case is pending for evidence of the defendants since long. Last opportunity had already been granted to the defendants but they did not come forward with production of the evidence. In these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.2.2012 (Annexure P-6) of the lower court. 11. So far as CR No.4177 of 2012 is concerned, after passing of order dated 28.2.2012 (Annexure P-6) impugned in CR No.1967 of 2012, the lower court had granted last opportunity to the defendants to conclude their evidence on their own responsibility for 6.3.2012. On 6.3.2012, on the request of the defendants, the matter was adjourned. Various opportunities were granted to the petitioners-defendants to conclude their evidence and finally when the petitioners-defendants did not produce their evidence despite sufficient caution had been made to them that no further opportunity would be granted, evidence of the defendants was closed by the lower court vide order dated 12.6.2012, which order has been impugned in this revision petition. 12. The impugned order is absolutely clear and transparent that the defendants had been allowed ten effective opportunities for producing their evidence but even then they had failed to conclude their evidence without any plausible explanation for non-production of their evidence. When counsel for the petitioners-defendants was called upon to show any illegality in this order, no convincing reply has come forth. The petitioners-defendants have not been able to show filing of list of witnesses within 15 days of striking out of the issues and further that any steps had been taken by them for examining of the witnesses out of them which they wanted to produce in their further evidence. Even in this Court, the petitioners-defendants have not been able to prove their bonafides to reveal as to which of the witnesses out of any such list filed by them, they were yet to examine and wanted to produce in the witness box. In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with the impugned order dated 12.6.2012 (Annexure P-6) in this revision petition. 13. In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with the impugned order dated 12.6.2012 (Annexure P-6) in this revision petition. 13. So far as CR No.5270 of 2013 is concerned, in this case, order dated 7.8.2013 (Annexure P-6) vide which application (Annexure P-4) filed by petitioner-defendant Sukhdev Singh for giving of signatures in the court in the presence of handwriting and fingerprints expert for comparison with the signatures on the disputed receipt Ex.P1, was dismissed by the lower court, has been impugned. As is the case in CR No.1967 of 2012, even in this revision petition, the petitioners-defendants wanted to create evidence in their favour to disprove document Ex.R2 set up by the respondent-plaintiff. When the respondent-plaintiff has set up a document, it is for him to prove it. So far as negative evidence for disproving the same is concerned, that cannot be allowed to be created. 14. If the concerned defendant is in knowledge of any document of yesteryears of his signatures with some Bank, telephone department, electricity department or the like, such record could have been summoned and signatures thereon could have been taken as admitted signatures and could have been compared with the signatures on the disputed document. 15. Procedure sought to be adopted by the petitioners-defendants is a very crafty one to create evidence though of negative character in their own favour. There is no illegality in the well-written and well-explained impugned order dated 7.8.2013 (Annexure P-6) of the lower court. 16. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as discussed earlier, affirming the impugned orders passed by the lower court, all the three revision petitions, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed. 17. As the matter has already been delayed considerably, the lower court is directed to decide the suit within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————