Sharma, J.—This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff and arises out of the suit for the recovery of Rs. 442/- on account of price of certain grain said to have been due to the plaintiff and the proforma defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the principal defendant Kuberdan. It was alleged that Kuberdan had executed a khata in lieu of that grain on 14th March, 1943. Kuberdan admitted that he had executed the khata but pleaded that the settlement of the khata in suit and some other dues had been made between the parties on payment of Rs. 325/- and that there was nothing due to the plaintiff, after the payment of the said amount. Kuberden filed a receipt Ex.D.l to prove the said payment.

2. The defendant Kuberdan examined himself and produced two witness viz. Bhopalsingh and Shankerdan to prove the alleged settlement and the payment of Rs.325/-. All these witnesses stated that the receipt had been executed by the plaintiff Ram Sahai. The plaintiff denied having executed the said receipt. He filed an application on 30 March, 1948, that a hand writing expert was attending court on 7th April 1948, and that the receipt, Ex D.l, be got examined by him, Another application was made on the same date Kuberdan and Bhopalsingh be called and the plaintiff be given an opportunity to examine them with respect to certain documents

3. The trial court fixed 7th of April,1948 for consideration of these two applications. The case was adjourned and finally on 12th August, 1948; the application relating to the calling of witnesses was dismissed. There does not appear to be any specific order relating to the application regarding the examination of the questioned document by the expert.

4. After the close of evidence, the learned Munsif, Neem ka-thana dismissed the suit holding that the payment has been proved. The plaintiff went in appeal and the learned Civil Judge. Neem-ka-thana, who heard the appeal, agreed with the first court and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has come in second appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. PC. Bhandari on behalf of the appellant and Mr. R. K. Rastogi on behalf of the respondent. Only three points have been urged by Mr. Bhandari in this appeal. They are as follows—

(1) That the lower courts were wrong in not remanding the case for examination of the question document by an handwriting expert;

(2) That the lower courts were wrong in not giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to examine Kuberdan and Bhopalsingh with respect to certain documents filed by the plaintiff and

(3) That the lower courts were wrong in relying on their own observations regarding the questioned documents.

6. I may dispose of the point No. 3 first. Mr. Bhandari has relied upon the following observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Kesarbai vs. Jethabai Jivan(l). "It is unsatisfactory and dangerous to stake a decision; in a case where there is a direct conflict of testimony between parties to as general character of a signature, on the correct determination of the genuineness of the signature by mere comparison with the admitted signatures, especially without the aid in evidence of microscopic enlargement or any expert advice". There is no doubt that the observation of their Lordships of the Privy Council are entitled to a great weight the facts of present case are quite distinguishable from the facts of the case before their Lordships. In the case before their Lordships the dispute was between one Mst. Kessarbai on one side and Jethabhai Jivan on another Mst. Kessar-bai brought the suit for the recovery of four cases of saffron from Jethabhai Jivan, who, on the other hand, brought another suit against Mst. Kessarbai claiming a sum of Rs. 20,000/-before the delivery of saffron in question on the ground that the said amount was charged upon the saffron in question, in order to prove the alleged charge, Jethabhai Jivan summoned a bearer cheque from the bank of Netherlands in order to show that the sum for which the charge was claimed was pai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document