Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 983 (HP)

Ankit Hire Purchase (P) Ltd. v. Neelam Kumari

2016-05-31

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Aggrieved by an order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. I, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in an application under Sections 67 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act registered as CMA No. (Civil Suit No. 293 of 2004) 150/6/2015, the petitioner- Company (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has filed this petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the same and by allowing the application to send the admitted signatures of respondent- defendant No. 2 Rohit with the disputed signatures on the counterfoils of cheques-book mark 'A’ and 'B’. 2. On going through the record the plaintiff’s case, in a nut-shell, is that deceased Surender Bhalla had obtained a loan amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The plaintiff had issued two cheques and released the payment of loan amount to deceased Surender Bhalla amounting to Rs.70,000/- and Rs.30,000/- thereby. Said Sh. Surender Bhalla got both the cheques and counter-foils thereof signed from respondent-defendant No. 2. Said Surender Bhalla has failed to re-pay the loan amount as the cheques he issued in advance when presented for clearance were got bounced as by that time, he had already expired. This has led in filing the suit for recovery of the suit amount together with interest against his legal representatives, the respondents-defendants. 3. It is during the course of recording plaintiff’s evidence, respondent-defendant No. 2 has denied his signatures on the counterfoils of cheques mark 'A’ and 'B’. This has led in filing the application as aforesaid with a prayer that the admitted signatures of respondent-defendant No. 2 be sent to handwriting expert for comparison with disputed signatures on mark 'A’ and 'B’. 4. The application was resisted and contested on the grounds inter-alia that respondent No. 2 has not obtained the loan and as such, he has nothing to do with the so called transaction of loan between his father and the plaintiff-Company. Also that, his name is Rohit Kumar and not Rakesh. The application was sought to be dismissed. 5. Learned trial Judge while arriving at a conclusion that respondent-defendant No. 2 has nothing to do with the transaction of loan and that there is no need of comparison of his signatures has dismissed the application vide order under challenge in this petition. 6. Mr. The application was sought to be dismissed. 5. Learned trial Judge while arriving at a conclusion that respondent-defendant No. 2 has nothing to do with the transaction of loan and that there is no need of comparison of his signatures has dismissed the application vide order under challenge in this petition. 6. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel representing the petitioner-plaintiff has urged that name of respondent-defendant No. 2 is Rakesh Kumar. The said defendant, according to him, has also been called as Rohit. Now, in order to avoid the liability to repay the outstanding loan amount, the plea that he has nothing to do with the transaction of loan, has been raised. 7. Mr. Dheeraj K. Verma, learned counsel while repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff has strenuously contended that the suit has simply been filed to grab money from the defendants. Respondent-defendant No. 2 is neither a loanee nor the guarantor and the so called signatures on mark 'A’ and 'B’ are not of his signatures and, therefore, the application is without any merits. 8. Admittedly, the loan, if any, was sanctioned by the plaintiff-Company in favour of Sh. Surender Bhalla, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. Respondent-defendant No. 2 was neither a loanee nor it is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that he was guarantor, therefore, it is not understandable as to why his signatures were required on the cheques or counterfoils thereof. Above all, the counterfoils bear the signatures of Mr. Rakesh Kumar. The name of respondent-defendant No. 2 is, however, Rohit Kumar. No doubt, it is canvassed that said defendant is also called as Rakesh Kumar, however, without any basis, because nothing suggestive of that the name of defendant No. 2 is Rakesh Kumar @ Rohit Kumar has come on record. Therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served in case the application is allowed and the signatures of defendant No. 2 are sent for comparison to handwriting expert with the disputed signatures on the counterfoils mark 'A’ and 'B’. Allowing such a prayer would amount to abuse of process of law, besides delaying the proceedings in the suit, that too, without any justification. 9. The petition, therefore, being devoid of any merits is dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.