Delhi District Court
M/S Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Scj Plastics Ltd. & Anr on 23 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02 (SOUTHEAST),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 57/14
M/s Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
...... Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s SCJ Plastics Ltd. & Anr.
...... Defendants
O R D E R:
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application u/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act moved by the plaintiff.
2. It is stated in the application that case of the plaintiff is based upon various documents including the Minutes of Meeting dated 01.06.2011 wherein the defendants had agreed to compensate the plaintiff in terms thereof. The said document was signed by defendant no. 2 when he arrived at the office of the plaintiff company and had written his name and signed in the Entry register kept with the gate keeper of the plaintiff company. However, the defendants have denied the signatures on the said documents. Therefore, the plaintiff wants to examine the handwriting expert to prove the handwriting and signatures of defendant no. 2 on the entry register and on the Minutes of Meeting dated 01.06.2011 and has prayed that he may be allowed to take CS No. 57/14 M/s Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s SCJ Plastics & Anr. Page 1 of 4 photographs of the admitted documents of the defendant no. 2 from the judicial file and compare them with the disputed handwriting and signatures on the Minutes of Meeting dated 01.06.2011 and the Entry Register of the plaintiff company by the handwriting expert.
3. The defendants have contested the application by filing reply thereto contending that the plaintiff has not filed the alleged Minutes of Meeting dated 01.06.2011 in original which is a false, forged and fabricated document. The defendants came to know about the said forged and fabricated MOM dated 01.06.2011 for the first time on 16.02.2013 when the same was filed by the plaintiff company in the court of Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, Ld. ADJ (South) in the recovery suit filed by defendant no. 1 company against the plaintiff. The other documents of the plaintiff are also stated to be forged and fabricated and the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
5. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.
16,52,000/ against the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants supplied goods to the plaintiff, but same were found to be defective and of sub standard quality. The defendant no. 2 came to the office of the plaintiff on 01.06.2011 and accepted that the goods were of sub standard quality. The parties entered into a settlement on 01.06.2011 wherein the defendant had agreed to supply the raw material free of cost CS No. 57/14 M/s Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s SCJ Plastics & Anr. Page 2 of 4 or pay Rs. 14 lacs to compensate the plaintiff for the loss suffered by it. However, the defendants failed to honour its commitment as per MOU dated 01.06.2011 by which they had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 14 lacs to the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.
6. The defendants in the written statement have denied that any such meeting was held between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 or that defendant no. 2 signed the Minutes of Meeting dated 01.06.2011 by which the defendants had agreed to pay Rs. 14 lacs to the plaintiff as compensation. It is contended that MoM dated 01.06.2011 is forged and fabricated document. The defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7. Now, by way of present application the plaintiff wants to examine the handwriting expert to prove the handwriting and signatures of defendant no. 2 on the Minuets of Meeting dated 01.06.2011 and also wants to prove that the defendant no. 2 had come to the office of the plaintiff company on 01.06.2011 and had written his name in the Entry register kept with the gate keeper of the plaintiff company and also signed the same.
8. The case is proceeding for plaintiff's evidence and the plaintiff can examine any witness in support of its case to prove the facts which are in dispute. Since the defendant no. 2 has denied his signatures on the MOM dated 01.06.2011 and the entry register of the plaintiff company, the plaintiff can prove the same by examining the handwriting CS No. 57/14 M/s Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s SCJ Plastics & Anr. Page 3 of 4 expert. The plaintiff has also shown the name of the hand writing expert in the list of witnesses. Therefore, I do not find any obstruction in examining the hand writing expert by plaintiff to prove its case. The defendants shall also have sufficient opportunity to crossexamine the plaintiff's witness.
9. The plaintiff has also placed on record the original Minutes of Meeting dated 01.06.2011, therefore the contention of the defendants that plaintiff has filed only photocopy of the same is without any merit.
10. So far the contention of the defendants that no such meeting was held between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 and the alleged Minutes of Meeting dated 01.06.2011 is a forged and fabricated document is concerned, the same cannot be decided at this stage being matter of trial.
11. Since the plaintiff wants to examine the hand writing expert to prove the signatures of defendant no. 2 on Minutes of Meeting dated 01.06.2011 and Entry Register to prove its case, the application is allowed. The plaintiff is allowed to take photographs of the admitted documents of the defendant no. 2 from the judicial file and compare them with the disputed handwriting and signatures on the Minutes of Meeting dated 01.06.2011 and the Entry Register of the plaintiff company by the handwriting expert.
Announced in open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 23rd October, 2015 Addl. District Judge 02 (SouthEast)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS No. 57/14
M/s Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s SCJ Plastics & Anr. Page 4 of 4
CS No. 57/14
M/s Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s SCJ Plastics & Anr. 23.10.2015 Present: None.
Vide my separate order of even date, the application u/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act moved by the plaintiff is allowed.
Now, to come up on 12.01.2016 for PE.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi 23.10.2015 CS No. 57/14 M/s Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s SCJ Plastics & Anr. Page 5 of 4