Petitioner challenged dismissal of application to examine handwriting expert. Court allowed application, setting aside impugned order, citing fair trial requirements and distinguishing precedent where dilatory tactics were involved.
Impugned order set aside; application for taking assistance of handwriting expert allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Manoj Kumar #1# 2018.06.02 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.R.No.142 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.142 of 2017
Gurcharan Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Jagtar Singh
....Respondent
Date of Order: 23.5.2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present: Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate and Mr. Chetan Goel, Advocate for the respondent. AMIT RAWAL, J (ORAL)
Petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 16.12.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridkot whereby his application to examine hand writing and finger print expert at the final stage of the suit has been dismissed.
It is stated that the plaintiff-petitioner instituted the suit for recovery of Rs.9,24,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt, which was emphatically denied by the defendant in the written statement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had always been diligent to lead evidence. The petitioner examined one of the marginal attesting witnesses of pronote and receipt on 16.10.2013 and when the matter was listed for cross examination, it was the respondentdefendant who intentionally, in order to linger the matter submitted an application for amendment of the written statement in the month of November, 2013. Said application was dismissed in July 2015. In the meanwhile, one of the marginal attesting witnesses to the pronote and receipt had died. There was no occasion for the other side to cross examine the witness owing to the fact that the defendant had been proceeded ex parte
C.R.No.142 of 2017 #2#
on 14.8.2015 and ex parte proceedings were set aside only on 11.8.2016. In these circumstances, occasion arose for taking assistance of hand writing expert as one of the attesting witnesses had died. In support, he relies on a judgment of this Court reported as Jaswinder Singh Vs. Rajwant Kaur and Ors, 2014(36) RCR (Civil) 942 .
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the absence of any right having been reserved for leading evidence in rebuttal, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead evidence of expert at the stage of argument, for it would tantamount to de novo trial. In support of arguments, he relied on a judgment of this Court reported as Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 537. He thus urged for dismissal of the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances as narrated above, in my view, it is a fit case where the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to examine the hand writing expert, for, plaintiff-petitioner with all diligence had been pursuing the suit and even examined in chief second marginal witness of pronote and receipt in question i.e Jeet Singh on 16.10.2013. It is not in dispute that thereafter respondent moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 11.11.2013 and the entire focus was drawn on the same, which was dismissed on 09.7.2015. In this manner, it was the respondent, who squandered the precious time. Thereafter, on 14.8.2015, respondent absented himself from attending the proceedings and was accordingly proceeded against ex parte on 14.8.2015 but was again permitted to join proceedings on 11.8.2016 subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs but in the meantime, the second marginal
#3#
C.R.No.142 of 2017
attesting witness died on 18.5.2015.
Taking into account the aforesaid facts, in my view, the evidence of the hand writing expert to prove the signatures was necessary and essential to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. If an opportunity is not granted to the plaintiff to examine expert, it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the
case as has been held by this court in Jaswinder Singh's case (supra) . Moreover, no harm and prejudice would be caused to the opposite party. It is not a case where the plaintiff-petitioner had not taken any steps to lead evidence in affirmative for examining the expert, therefore, the judgment rendered in Surjit Singh's case (supra) would not apply in this case.
In view of aforesaid, present petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside and the application submitted by the petitioner for taking assistance of the expert is allowed.
May 23, 2018 `(AMIT RAWAL) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a plaintiff is entitled to examine a handwriting and fingerprint expert at the final stage of the suit after amendment dismissal.
Whether granting expert evidence at argument stage amounts to a de novo trial causing prejudice to the respondent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jaswinder Singh Vs. Rajwant Kaur and OrsRelied on¶17
Jaswinder Singh Vs. Rajwant Kaur and Ors, 2014(36) RCR (Civil) 942
Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and othersDistinguished¶24
Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 537
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurcharan Singh
Jagtar Singh
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
