Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Rakesh Varma – Appellant
Versus
Vidya Sagar Bhagat (Deceased) through LRs. and Another – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous (M) No. 620 of 2019, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 18717 of 2019
Decided On : 11-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Shankar Vaidiallingam, Baldev Krishan, Shivain Vaidialingam, J.K. Bhola, Kuljeet Rawal
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the stage for leading evidence must be adhered to, and permissions to examine experts at a late stage, especially in a 30-year-old suit, should not be granted.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Property Dispute - Evidence Act - [Evidence Act, Section 45] - The court discussed the admissibility of evidence and the permission to examine a handwriting expert 30 years after the filing of the suit. The court set aside the permission to examine the handwriting expert, emphasizing that the stage for leading evidence had long been completed and the permission was wrongly granted.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute regarding a specific performance suit filed by the Plaintiff seeking a decree in respect of an agreement to sell dated 27th December, 1987. Another suit was filed by Defendant No. 2 claiming an agreement to sell with the deceased Defendant No. 1 for the same property. The evidence was concluded, and an application was filed by Defendant No. 2 seeking permission to obtain the opinion of a handwriting expert on a receipt dated 02.03.1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the permission to examine the handwriting expert 30 years after the filing of the suit was wrongly granted. It emphasized that the stage for leading evidence had long been completed and set aside the impugned order. The court directed the suits to be decided and judgment to be pronounced within three months, prohibiting further delay by either party.
Issues: The main issue was whether Defendant No. 2 should be allowed to lead evidence of the handwriting expert 30 years after the filing of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the stage for leading evidence had long been completed and the permission to examine the handwriting expert was wrongly granted. It highlighted that if the parties intended to challenge the receipt, they should have done so in their pleadings and led evidence of any expert at the appropriate stage.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The suits were directed to be decided, and judgment was to be pronounced within three months, with no further delay permitted by either party.
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. The crux of the present petition is property bearing no. D-15, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi, ad measuring 297 sq. yds. The Petitioner/Plaintiff-Dr. Rakesh Verma (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") filed a suit for specific performance seeking a decree in respect of agreement to sell dated 27th December, 1987 in respect of the suit property. In the suit, reliance was placed on receipt dated 2nd March, 1988, which according to the Plaintiff was an acknowledgment by the owner of the property - Mr. Vidya Sagar Bhagat, Defendant No. 1 (since deceased) that possession had been handed over and some of the consideration was paid.
2. Another suit was filed by Mr. Suresh Mansharamani-Respondent No. 2/Defendant No. 2 (hereinafter "Defendant No. 2") wherein he claimed that he had entered into an agreement to sell with Mr. Vidya Sagar Bhagat dated 3rd May,1988 in respect of the very same property. Both suits were being heard in this Court, and issues were framed on 14th March, 1995 on the Original Side of this Court.
3. The suits were thereafter transferred due to the increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, and evidence was recorded before the District Court. Evidence was concluded on 20th November, 2018, at which stage, an earlier application, which had been filed by Defendant No. 2 for leading the evidence of a handwriting expert was considered and the impugned order was passed, permitting the said handwriting expert to be examined. The impugned order reads as under:
"1. This order shall dispose off an application u/s 45 of Evidence Act of the defendant no. 2. Reply to this application already filed by the plaintiff.
2. By way of this application, the defendant no. 2 is seeking permission of the court to obtain the opinion of hand writing expert on the signatures of deceased defendant no. 1 Vidya Sagar Bhagat on the receipt dated 02.03.1988.
3. The application in hand is strongly opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that defendant no. 2 has nothing to do with the receipt dated 02.03.1988, as the same was issued by the deceased defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, any issue relating to said receipt is between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 has no locus to challenge the said receipt. Counsel for plaintiff pointed out that in the written statement filed by the defendant no. 2, he himself stated that the said receipt was issued by the defendant no. 1 in favour of plaintiff, therefore, it is for the defendant no. 1 to find out under what circumstances the said forged receipt was prepared. Counsel for plaintiff also submitted that the plaintiff herein is relying upon the receipt dated 02.03.1988, since the filing of the suit in the year 1988, but the defendant no. 2 has come up with the present application in the year 2017 i.e. almost after 30 years from the date of filing of the suit, only with the intention to delay the suit.
4. I have heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. Undoubtedly, the suit is almost 30 years old but this court is of the view that the substantial rights of the parties should not be effected only because of age of the suit. Though, plaintiff has rightly pointed out that he is relying upon the receipt dated 02.03.1988, since the date of filing of the suit i.e. in the year 1988. In the year 1994, during admission/denial of the documents, defendant no. 1, during his lifetime, specifically denied the receipt dated 02.03.1988. Despite relying upon the said receipt by the plaintiff since the beginning of the suit and denial of the signatures of defendant no. 1 by him during his lifetime, the defendant no. 2 after passing of almost 30 years have come up with the present application but the delay caused in the matter can be compensated in terms of the cost. The plaintiff has also examined hand writing expert as PW-4 in order to prove the receipt dated 02.03.1988, therefore, it would be appropriate that defendant no. 2 be also
