IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R. No. 1818 of 2007

DATE OF DECISION:03.04.2007

Amar Nath @ Amara

..........Petitioner

Versus

M/s Maili Ram Ramesh Kumar

..........Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

Present:-

Shri R.K. Hooda, Advocate

for Shri Ramesh Chahal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

The petitioner, who is the defendant, in the main suit has filed

this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the

order dated 22.2.2007 passed by the trial Court, whereby, the application

filed by the petitioner for issuing directions to the plaintiff to produce the

documents Ex.D-1 to D-5 in the Court for the purpose of comparison of the

signatures of the defendant on those documents was dismissed. The said

application was dismissed by the trial Court while observing as under:-

“After hearing the rival contentions raised by the learned

counsel for the parties, this Court finds force in the contentions

raised by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. Rather

there is no force in the contentions raised by learned counsel

for applicant-defendant. In the present case, the case of the

plaintiff is that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal

amount of Rs,3,00,000/- from the defendant alongwith interest

as the defendant has also executed the pronote and receipt in

favour of the plaintiff on 18.4.2003 and the entries were

incorporated in this regard in the bahies. The plaintiff

C.R. No. 1818 of 2007

-2-

appeared in the witness box as PW1. Ved Parkash appeared

as PW2, Pawan appeared as PW3 and Dr. Inderjit Singh,

Handwriting & Finger Print Expert appeared as PW4. When

the plaintiff appeared in the witness box, then he was cross-

examined by the learned counsel for the defendant at length.

In his cross-examination, the learned counsel for the defendant

has requested that further cross-examination be deferred as he

wants to confront the witness with the original J Forms issued

to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff firm. He has further

requested that the witness be directed to produce the pass-

book of his account and the original J-Form book which are in

his possession. The request of the learned counsel for the

defendant was allowed and J Form receipts in original were

ordered to be produced by the defendant at his own

responsibility. The witness was also directed to produce the

pass-book of his account and J Form book, if available. Then

on 27.7.2006, the witness was recalled for further cross-

examination and in his cross-examination, he has admitted the

Forms Ex. D1 to Ex. D5, which belong to his firm and same

were issued by his Munim. Meaning thereby the plaintiff has

admitted the issuance of the Forms Ex.D1 to Ex.D5.

It is worthwhile to mention here that when the plaintiff has

admitted in his cross-examination J Forms as mentioned in the

application as Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 that these forms have been

issued by his firm, then there is no need to summon the

original Forms. Moreover the case of the plaintiff is resting on

the pronote and receipt and this court has to see whether the

pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant in favour

C.R. No. 1818 of 2007

-3-

of the plaintiff firm or not. Moreover, the onus to prove issues

No.1 and 2 is on the plaintiff and onus to prove issues no.3 to 5

is on the defendant. The plaintiff has examined four witness in

his case. So, this Court is of the view that there is no necessity

to summon the Forms which are mentioned in this application

as these forms are not necessary for just and proper

adjudication of this case as the original Forms Ex.D1 to Ex.D5

are also on the file and on these Forms, the defendant has

already cross-examined the plaintiff at length. As such, in view

of my above said recorded discussion, this court is of the

opinion that the present application is uncalled for,

unsustainable and i