VIJAY KUMAR Vs. MAMTA GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/defendant has assailed order dtd. 11/9/2025 of the learned trial court, whereby application under Sec. 45 read with Sec. 73 of the Evidence Act, as filed by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed and the document Ex.PW1/1 was permitted to be got forensically examined by a private expert to be engaged by the respondent/plaintiff. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner/defendant, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice.

(2.) Broadly speaking, the present respondent filed a suit against the present petitioner for recovery of Rs.15,50,000.00 with pendente lite and future interest, alleging that the parties had friendly relations and by misusing their friendship, the present petitioner borrowed Rs.11,50,000.00 from the present respondent at various stages, but refused to return the same. In the course of trial, the present respondent tendered in evidence an affidavit as Ex.PW1/1 purportedly executed by the present petitioner admitting that he had taken a loan of Rs.8,00,000.00 for a period of six months at the interest of 2.5% per month. Since stand taken by the present petitioner was that the said document Ex.PW1/1 is a forged and fabricated document, the present respondent moved an application for forensic analysis of the said document from CFSL. After hearing both sides, learned trial court disposed of the said application by permitting the present respondent to get Ex.PW1/1 forensically examined through her privately engaged handwriting expert.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner strongly contends that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law because Ex.PW1/1 is a "foreign document". It is contended by learned counsel that since the plaint does not specifically mention the said document, the document is a foreign document and cannot be deemed to have been proved. Learned counsel for petitioner also contends that merely because a document has been assigned exhibit number, it does not mean that the document stands proved.