Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1207 (HP)

Manish Dharmaik v. Shyam Sharma

2015-09-01

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur 1. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.7 lacs against the defendant. The amount of Rs.7 lacs as endeavoured to be recovered by the plaintiff from the defendant was comprised in a cheque Ext.PW-2/C on reverse whereof the signature of the defendant/respondent herein purportedly exist for manifesting the fact of his having presented Ext.PW- 2/C before the bank concerned and his having come to withdraw the amount comprised in it. On the defendant-respondent herein withdrawing from the bank concerned the amount constituted in Ext.PW-2/C led the plaintiff to institute a suit for its recovery from the defendant-respondent herein. The defendant had concerted to escape his liability to pay a sum of Rs.7 lacs to the plaintiff on the strength of his purported signatures on the reverse of Ext.PW-2/C not belonging to him. The plaintiff to disprove the factum of denial by the defendant of his signatures not existing on the reverse of Ext.PW-2/C whereupon the defendant foisted a ground to escape his liability towards the plaintiff to defray to the latter a sum of Rs.7 lacs besides to belie the defendant-respondent herein in his contesting his signatures existing on the reverse of Ext.PW-2/C, concerted to before the learned trial Court institute an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for the purportedly disputed signatures of the defendant respondent herein existing on the reverse of Ext.PW-2/C being sent for comparison with the admitted signatures of the defendant respondent herein to the expert concerned for eliciting from the latter an opinion whether the contest by the defendant to the factum of his signatures existing on the reverse of Ext.PW-2/C is or is not ingrained with falsity. The application as instituted before the learned trial Court came to be dismissed on a mere flimsy pretext of it having been belatedly instituted. The application as instituted before the learned trial Court came to be dismissed on a mere flimsy pretext of it having been belatedly instituted. The belated institution of the application aforesaid before the learned trial Court by the plaintiff was not a formidable reason to reject the application, especially when the opinion obtained from the expert concerned on his comparing the disputed signatures of the defendant on the reverse of Ext.PW-2/C with the latter’s admitted signatures would have facilitated, in case the opinion rendered by the expert concerned unearthed the factum as canvassed by the defendant herein of his signatures on the reverse of Ext.PW-2/C not belonging to him, a conclusion rather in support of the contention of the defendant respondent herein on anvil whereof endeavoured to escape his liability to the plaintiff to pay to the latter a sum of Rs.7 lacs besides when hence the rendition of an opinion by the expert concerned would have put to rest the controversy qua the tenability of demand of Rs.7 lacs by the plaintiff from the defendant. Consequently, the mere belated institution of the application before the learned trial Court was not a vigorous reason to reject it. The learned counsel for the defendant respondent herein contends that the elicitation from the expert concerned of an opinion after his having compared the disputed signatures of the defendant on the reverse of Ext.PW- 2/C with his admitted signatures would at this stage tantamount to an abuse of process of law. However, the said argument stands negated for the reason that when the rendition of an opinion by the expert concerned would clinch the factum whether the contest or resistance by the defendant to the suit of the plaintiff is harbored upon truth or not, hence obviously for reiteration the opinion of the expert concerned would rather facilitate and aid the learned trial Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff or non suiting the plaintiff. In aftermath when the adduction into evidence of the opinion of the expert would facilitate, aid and assist the learned trial Court in determining the acerbic contest interse the parties at contest necessarily then its elicitation from the expert by allowing the application would in no manner constitute abuse of process of law. The impugned order is manifestly ridden with glaring impropriety besides is ridden with gross illegality necessarily then it warrants interference by this Court. The impugned order is manifestly ridden with glaring impropriety besides is ridden with gross illegality necessarily then it warrants interference by this Court. Hence, the order of the learned trial Court is set-aside. The petition stands allowed. In sequel, the application preferred by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court is allowed. However, the observations made herein shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall decide the civil suit uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove.