Back
2007 Supreme(Jhk) 87
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
M.Y. EQBAL, J
Satyanarayan Rao – Appellants
Versus
M. Prasad Rao @ M. Rao – Respondent
Decided On : 13.02.2007
The decision emphasizes the importance of allowing examination by a handwriting expert when the entire decision in a suit is based on a disputed document.
Headnote:
Handwriting Expert - Money Suit - Court allowed the application to send the document for examination by a handwriting expert as the entire decision in the suit was based on the disputed document.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a Money Suit for recovery of money allegedly borrowed by the defendant. The defendant denied the allegation and requested the document to be examined by a handwriting expert. The Court rejected the request based on delay.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the rejection of the defendant's request to send the document for examination by a handwriting expert was not justified, as the entire decision in the suit was based on the disputed document.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the defendant's request to send the document for examination by a handwriting expert.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the rejection of the defendant's request was not justified, as the document was vital to the suit and the decision was based on it.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Court directed the document in question to be sent for examination by a handwriting expert and instructed the lower court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
M.Y. Eqbal, J
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. A.R. Choudhary appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. In this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.2.2006 passed in Money Suit No. 14/2002 whereby the Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur refused to send the document for examination by handwriting expert.
3. From perusal of the order it appears that the Court below rejected the application mainly on the ground that the evidence of the defendant was closed and thereby he lost the opportunity to get the document examined by a handwriting expert.
4. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid Money Suit No. 14/2002 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Jamshedpur for a decree of realisation of Rs. 2,05,000/- on the ground, inter alia, that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs from the plaintiff at the time of this need and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% p. a.
5. The defendant, in the written statement, denied the allegation and took a defence that the alleged hand note is a forged document. The defendant closed his evidence on 31.5.2005 and, thereafter, filed a petition for examination of the alleged document by a handwriting expert.
6. There is no dispute that the alleged hand note/receipt is the basis of the suit for recovery of the money allegedly taken by the defendant from the plaintiff. The defendant-petitioner has denied the genuineness of the said document and refuted the allegation made by the plaintiff regarding taking of loan from the plaintiff. Since the document is a very vital document and the entire decision in the suit is based on that document, I am of the view that on the ground of delay the prayer of the plaintiff for sending the document for examination by a handwriting expert ought not to have been rejected. The Court below, therefore, has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested in it.
7. For the aforesaid reason, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently the Court below is directed to send the document in question for examination by a handwriting expert and try to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possibly.
Application allowed.
