Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Singh vs Mohan Lal on 4 December, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CR No. 7263 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 7263 of 2013
Date of decision: December 4 , 2013
Mohinder Singh
....... Petitioner
Versus
Mohan Lal
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
K. Kannan, J (oral).
CM NO. 24239-CII of 2013 C.M.is allowed.
Annexure P-3 taken on record.
CR No. 7263 of 2013
1. The revision petition is against the dismissal of an application for framing of additional issue after remand from the Appellate Court. I have seen through the written statement. The defendant has contended that his thumb impression had bene taken on some blank papers and the plaintiff has played a fraud by making it appear as though it is a promissory note. According to him, the promissory note is a forgery and it is not enforceable. The appropriate issue must have been therefore whether the promissory note sued by the plaintiff is true and validly executed (OPP). When ever there is a contention in defence that the document is not true and that it is a forged, the burden is never on the defendant because he pleads forgery. On the other hand, forgery vitiates all transactions and the person who seeks for enforcement of such an instrument in Archana Arora 2013.12.06 15:47 I am the author of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No. 7263 of 2013 2 order to get a decree will take upon himself the burden in view of Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act. The additional issues shall therefore be:
"Whether the promissory note sued upon by the plaintiff is true and valid and not vitiated as forgery contended by the defendant." (OPP)
2. I dispense with notice to the respondents only because the framing of issue is a duty of court and any error in framing of issues on admitted pleadings would require to be corrected by the Court on its own motion which cannot prejudice any party. If on account of the additional issue framed, the plaintiff would require to give additional evidence, he shall be at liberty to produce that evidence before the defendant is called upon to give the evidence. If the defendant has already given evidence and looking up for further evidence on account of the order of remand, the plaintiff shall be permitted to re-open the case and bring such evidence as he thinks necessary to prove the promissory note. The plaintiff is also permitted to give his own evidence. In such an eventuality, the defendant in which case will obtain a further right of rebuttal to such evidence given by the plaintiff.
3. The impugned order is set aside. The revision petition is allowed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 4, 2013 archana Archana Arora 2013.12.06 15:47 I am the author of this document High Court Chandigarh