Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. In defendant's evidence, the defendant no. 1 examined herself as DW-1 and defendant no. 2 examined himself as DW-2. Their examination by way of affidavit is Ex DW-1/A and Ex DW-2/A respectively wherein the defence taken in the written statement has been restated. In her cross- examination, DW-1 stated that she neither knows what is written in Ex DW-1/1 nor was she explained the contents thereof by her counsel. She further stated that late Sh. Rajbir used to work as a gardener in MCD and had no other source of income. She admitted that she can cannot recognize the signatures of her husband as she is not literate and further stated that she has not seen him ever sign any document. Lastly, she stated that no police complaint was filed by her against the plaintiff with regards to the alleged forgery of the promissory notes and cheque. She was discharged after the completion of her cross-examination.

13. The defendants examined two witnesses. The first witness i.e. defendant no.1/DW-1 has stated unequivocally in her cross-examination that she neither knows what is written in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex DW-1/A nor were the contents thereof explained to her. In these circumstances, her examination in chief by way of affidavit i.e. Ex DW- 1/A cannot be relied upon and her testimony contained therein loses its credence. Furthermore, in her cross-examination, she has also admitted that she cannot recognize the signatures of Sh. Rajbir as she is illiterate. In these circumstances, her testimony that the signatures on Ex PW-1/1, Ex PW-1/2 and Ex PW-1/3 do not belong to Sh. Rajbir also does not inspire confidence. The second witness for the defendants was the defendant no. 2/DW-2 who also denied that his father, Sh. Rajbir, ever took any loan from the plaintiff or that the promissory notes (Ex PW-1/1 and Ex PW-1/2) and the cheque Ex PW-1/3 were executed by him. However, he has not produced any other evidence in support of his bare denials and there is nothing on record to prove what Sh. Rajbir's actual CS No. 84/17 Somnath Nayak Vs. Sumitra Devi 8/12 signatures, as alleged by the defendants, are like. In addition, as evident from the cross-examination of DW-1 and DW-2, no police complaint was filed by any of the defendants against the plaintiff with respect to the alleged forgery of promissory notes Ex PW-1/1 and Ex PW-1/2 or cheque Ex PW-1/3. This conduct of the defendants is surprising and without explanation, which further renders the defence improbable. Reference in this regard may be placed upon O.P. Gupta v. Sarla Devi Jain (2018 SCC OnLine Del 9659).