Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2496 (RAJ)

Pola Singh v. Firm Babu Singh Bhagwant Singh

2022-09-21

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 26.11.2016 passed by the Debt Recovery Court, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner-non-applicant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was dismissed and the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner. 3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent-applicant preferred a suit for recovery of money from the petitioner and during the pendency of the suit, an application was preferred by the respondent-applicant to the effect that the Promissory Note may be got examined from a Handwriting Expert for the purpose of matching the signatures of the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner filed reply to the said application. Learned trial court after hearing the parties, allowed the application and the Promissory Note/the document in question was sent to one Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting Expert for reporting the matter with respect to the matching of the signatures on the document (Promissory Note). After the report was received, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting Expert is an arranged witness of the respondent-applicant and thus, he submitted a report favouring the case of the respondent. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred one more application before the trial court with a prayer that the documents which were got examined by Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, as Handwriting Expert, should be got examined from one more independent Agency situated at Jodhpur or Jaipur. This application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 26.11.2016, against which, the petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same too was rejected by the Revisional Authority i.e. District Judge, Sriganganagar vide its order dated 27.02.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below committed an error while rejecting the application for getting the documents examined from an independent Agency. He further submits that no prejudice or loss will be caused to the respondent, if the documents are examined from an independent Handwriting Expert of the Government department located at Jodhpur or Jaipur. Learned counsel submits that in other matters also, which are pending before different Agencies, such practice has been adopted by the respondent for taking a favourable report from Mr. Learned counsel submits that in other matters also, which are pending before different Agencies, such practice has been adopted by the respondent for taking a favourable report from Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed, the impugned orders may kindly be quashed and set aside and the documents may be ordered to be got examined from the Government Forensic Authorities located at Jaipur or Jodhpur within a specific time frame. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that on the application preferred for sending the Promissory Note for examination to the Handwriting Expert- Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, no objection was raised by the petitioner and an order to that effect was passed by the learned trial court. In pursuance of the directions issued by the trial court, a report was prepared by Shri Anil Kumar Gupta and the same was presented before the trial court. He further submits that since the report has gone against the present petitioner, an application, to delay the proceedings and not to pay the amount due to the respondent, has been filed. Learned counsel submits that the revisional court also examined the matter and rightly came to the conclusion that despite the opportunities having been given to the petitioner, though the petitioner filed the reply but not objected to the name of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta for getting a report on the matching of the signatures on the Promissory Note, thus, if one more time, the document is sent for examination to any other Expert, then it will delay the proceedings of disposal of the application and it will be a never ending process. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the impugned orders along with the relevant documents. 7. The pendency of the suit before the learned Court below is since the year 2007, in which, on an application preferred by the respondent calling for the report of a Handwriting Expert, the name of Anil Kumar Gupta was suggested and the same was not opposed by the petitioner, therefore, the learned trial court ordered for sending the documents to Shri Anil Kumar Gupta and a report was prepared by him and the same was sent to the trial court. The report favours the respondent and is against the interest of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the application was preferred by the petitioner for resending the documents to some other Handwriting Expert of the Government Department for examination. The fact that once the name suggested by the respondent was not opposed by the petitioner, it can very well be presumed that the petitioner was having full faith in the expertise of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta and the same was not objected to at the relevant time, therefore, after the report having been received against the petitioner, the objections on the report were raised. 8. Learned trial court while rejecting the application of the petitioner rightly observed that in the first instance, when the application was moved, the same was not objected by the petitioner and the name suggested by the respondent was agreed by the petitioner for getting the report as a Handwriting Expert. 9. The filing of the subsequent application shows that the petitioner is delaying the decision resulting into delaying the payment of the amount due to the respondent. The revisional court also considered the submissions made before it and rightly concluded that it is a never ending process of getting the document examined from different Experts and causing delay in disposal of the pending application before the trial court. 10. In the opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the Courts below does not suffer from any infirmity and does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.