Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Per contra, Mr. Sakya Sen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/decree holder submitted that the plaintiff is the beneficiary of three cheques. In fact, all the cheques were drawn in the name of Monjur Alam Mallick the proceeds of the said three cheques have gone to an account maintained by the defendant with the Shyambazar Branch of United Bank of India since closed after March, 2015. Mr. Sen has referred to the three cheques being Exhibit C, C1 and C2 and has drawn our attention to the original signature of the defendant in the written statement and the signature of the defendant in the promissory note in order to establish that the amount was withdrawn by the defendant the allegation of forgery of the promissory note is a clear afterthought and a frivolous plea.

The learned Judge has taken into consideration the documents being Exhibit B, B2 and B3 being the account payee cheque nos. 765916 dated 14th March, 2005 for Rs.5 lakhs, cheque no.765918 dated 21st March, 2005 for Rs.2 lakhs and cheque no.765919 dated 30th March, 2005 for Rs.22 lakhs in favour of Monjur Alam Mallick were issued by the plaintiff. The said amount had been withdrawn by debiting the savings account no.329-1- 010182-9 of the plaintiff maintained by him in the Standard Chartered Bank, Shyambazar Branch as appearing from Exhibit C being the statement of account vide Exhibit C1, C2 and C3 being the relevant entries duly identified and proved by the plaintiff and the said amounts were credited to the account of M.A. Mallick and was encashed and utilized by the defendant which is evident from Exhibit D being the mortgage loan account of the defendant no.1. We find from the debit column of Exhibit D that on different dates starting from 2nd November, 2004 till 7th January, 2005 a sum aggregating to Rs.31 lakhs were transferred by the defendant no.1 to his account being OD-3/28 (Exhibit I) standing in the name of Mallick Services being the proprietorship concern of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 has admitted Exhibit I. It is significant to mention that although the defendant no. 1 has alleged that the promissory note is forged but he did not make any attempt to prove that the signature of the defendant appearing on the promissory note is not his signature. He did not obtain any opinion of the handwriting expert nor any evidence was adduced to establish his claim of forgery which is the subject matter of the suit being EOS 8 of 2015. The said suit originally numbered as T.S. 28/2011 was filed by the defendant no. 1 before the 1st Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sealdah presumably as a counter-blast to the suit filed by the plaintiff in 2008. It was during the pendency of this said suit the story of forgery was spun without realizing that one day the defendant would be required to establish its claim in the suit. In absence of any expert evidence the court is empowered under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare the admitted signature disputed by a party with the dispute signature to form an opinion. It is significant to mention that despite an order dated 18th January, 2017 passed at the instance of the defendant no attempt was made by the defendant no.1 to take an opinion of a handwriting expert with regard to his signature being Exhibit A on the promissory note. The defendant thereby has abandoned his claim of forgery. The promissory note was marked as Exhibit A3 without any objection. We have perused the signature of the defendant in the written statement as well as in the Title Suit filed before the City Civil Court and compared the said original signatures with the disputed signature in the promissory note being Exhibit A3 and we are of the opinion that there are more similarities than differences. In fact, we do not find any noticeable difference between the admitted and the so-called disputed signature. We have also considered the argument of Mr. Ghosh that the promissory note could not have been taken into consideration as acknowledgment of debt and no judgment could be pronounced on the basis of the promissory note. Even if we accept for the sake of argument, although we do not have any doubt in our mind that the objection as to the admissibility of the promissory note is completely unfounded, still there are enough evidence on record to establish jural relationship between the parties. The money was not given gratuitously. We have gone through the relevant depositions where the promissory note was tendered in evidence. The said document was tendered during examination in chief of PW1. The relevant questions are question nos. 10 to 21 of PW1 in examination in chief. The plaintiff in answer to the said question in chief has not only identified the signature of the witnesses to the said document but also prove the contents and only thereafter the said document in original was tendered in evidence and marked as Exhibit A3. The said document was tendered after answer to question no.21 was complete and thereafter the court records "the document is tendered and marked as Exhibit A3". This clearly shows that at the time of marking the document as exhibit no objection was raised by the defendant as to the admissibility of the said document on the ground that the said document is insufficiently stamped. It is well settled by a long catena of decisions that if a party fails to raise any objection with regard to the admissibility of the document on the ground of any defect like insufficiency of stamp, the said party is clearly estopped from raising any objection at the hearing of the suit regarding its admissibility. The objection if any, has to be raised at the time when the document is tendered in evidence and not subsequently for the simple reason that if such objection is considered to be valid then a party would have a chance to remove the defects and or deficiency in the document in order to make it admissible.