Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nachhattar Singh vs Jagir Singh on 25 September, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CR No.6076 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.6076 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision:25.09.2014
Nachhattar Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Jagir Singh
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.Kulbhushan Raheja, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Thind, Advocate, for the respondent.
G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral)
Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 19.09.2012 (Annexure P3), passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Ferozepur, whereby, while closing the evidence of the defendant-petitioner, an application for comparison of the disputed signatures of the petitioner on documents, Exhibits P1 & P2, with his admitted signatures, was rejected.
A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the Civil Suit for recovery of `3,66,000/- was filed on the strength of a pro-note and on receipt dated 07.08.2007. The defendant-petitioner took a specific plea that the said pro-note was a forged, false and fabricated document and was never executed by him in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. His signatures were not on the said document and there was a dispute inter se between the answering-defendant, on one side and his erstwhile Commission Agent, M/s Sukhwinder Singh & Sons.
The issues were framed on 12.03.2009 in the said suit, which was filed on 21.07.2008. The plaintiff-respondent completed his evidence and closed the same only on 10.04.2012 and the case was fixed for 09.05.2012, for defendant's evidence, on which date, an adjournment was taken and thereafter also, on 07.06.2012, an adjournment was taken. On 28.08.2012, Nachhattar Singh, the defendant-petitioner was examined and he suffered an undertaking that SAILESH RANJAN he would conclude the evidence on the next date of hearing at his own 2014.10.01 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.6076 of 2012 (O&M) -2- responsibility and the case was, accordingly, fixed for 19.09.2012, on which date, the impugned order was passed, on the ground that the defendant-petitioner had taken 4 opportunities and thus, the undertaking had been violated. The defendant-petitioner had also filed an application at that stage for sending the pro-note and the Vakalatnama and the written statement for comparison of the petitioner's signatures, which was also rejected by the Trial Court, who was obviously biased on account of the fact that the defendant-petitioner had not completed his evidence, as undertaken.
Thus, it would be apparent that the Trial Court had not given adequate opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to lead his evidence. Only 4 opportunities were granted and out of the same, the defendant-petitioner had examined himself and he only got the period from 09.05.2012 to 19.09.2012, to lead his evidence whereas, on the other hand, the plaintiff-respondent took his time of 3 years to complete his evidence. In such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be held to be justified.
A specific plea has been taken that the pro-note is forged and in such circumstances, the decision on the application was also not in proper perspective and the matter should have been examined with closure scrutiny, which the Trial Court has failed to do. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and the Trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.09.2012 (Annexure P3) is quashed and the closing of the defendants evidence, is set aside. The Trial Court shall decide the application for comparison of the specimen signatures, afresh, in accordance with law.
With the abovesaid observations, the present revision petition is allowed.
25.09.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) SAILESH RANJAN sailesh 2014.10.01 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and JUDGE integrity of this document