Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iv) The letter of subrogation dated 23.8.2004 is a forged and fabricated document and which is clear from the fact that whereas the date of said letter of subrogation is 23.8.2004, however its attestation is of prior date of 17.6.2004. The letter of subrogation is also pleaded to be forged because the same was attested on 17.6.2004 whereas the purchase of the stamp paper is of a later viz. 7.7.2004.

(v) There was no valid authority on behalf of the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1/insurance company for filing of the suit by the person who filed the suit namely Sh. N.S. Dhillow, Manager.

14.(i) The next argument urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant was that the letter of subrogation Ex.PW1/12 dated 23.8.2004 should be held to be a forged and fabricated document. Two arguments in this regard have been urged. Firstly, it is argued that if the document bears the date of 23.8.2004 then how can the same be attested by a Notary of an earlier date of 17.6.2004. Also, it is argued that the stamp paper in question with respect to letter of subrogation Ex.PW1/12 is dated 7.7.2004, and therefore, there could not have been attestation of an earlier date on 17.6.2004.

(ii) Both the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant to argue that the letter of subrogation Ex.PW1/12 is a forged and fabricated document are without any basis whatsoever. Firstly, it is seen that there is no locus standi in the appellant/defendant to question the issue of letter of subrogation because the questioning of letter of subrogation issued by the respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2 in favour of the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1/insurance company would only be of the respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2. Once the respondents/plaintiffs filed and proved the letter of subrogation then if the contention of the appellant/defendant was that the same was not duly executed by the respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2 in favour of the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1, then, the appellant/defendant could have summoned any officer of the respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2 that the letter of subrogation was not issued by the respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2. That however has not been done. Also it is noted that the date of purchase of the stamp paper is not 7.7.2004 as is argued on behalf of the appellant/defendant but the date of the purchase of the stamp paper of the letter of subrogation is 7.7.2002 i.e much prior to execution of the letter of subrogation on 23.8.2004. The date of 7.7.2002 is also the date prior to the date of the attestation by the Notary on 17.6.2004. Accordingly, it cannot be argued on behalf of the appellant/defendant that the notarization dated 17.6.2004 is earlier than the date of purchase of the stamp paper which is alleged to be dated 7.7.2004 because in fact the purchase of the stamp paper of the letter of subrogation is not 7.7.2004 but is 7.7.2002 and which becomes clear from the back side of the stamp paper of the letter of subrogation and which has been examined by this Court.

(iii) Also the issue of notarization being of an earlier date of 17.6.2004 does not impress this Court for various reasons. Firstly it is seen that the Notary in his own hands by writing three lines has given endorsement of the notarization being of 23.8.2004, and this is found in green coloured pen lines written on the second page of the letter of subrogation. In any case at best this argument of the appellant/defendant will result in letter of subrogation being a non-notarized document, but non-notarization is not the same thing as non-execution and accordingly once the letter of subrogation has been proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/12 by the respondents/plaintiffs, and unless the appellant/defendant had summoned any officer from the respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2 to prove the non- execution of the letter of subrogation Ex.PW1/12, the courts below have therefore committed no illegality in holding that the letter of subrogation Ex.PW1/12 stands duly proved. The fourth argument urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant that the letter of subrogation Ex.PW1/12 is a forged and fabricated document is therefore rejected.