AMISHABEN C TAILOR Vs. MANUBHAI NAROTTAMDAS SURTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the original defendant who has preferred an application Exh. 39 inter alia urging the Court to refer the cheque to the handwriting expert and the Court after hearing both the sides denied the request in a suit for recovery on the basis of dishonoured cheque.

(2.) REGULAR Civil Suit No. 98 of 2007 has been preferred by the respondents herein on the ground that the two cheques were given by the present petitioner (original defendant) on dated 11 th April 2007 and one of such cheques being that the cheque of Rs 41,000/ was cleared but the other cheque of Rs 1,50,000/ was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds.

(3.) THIS is of course not a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act however, from the beginning the defence of present petitione is very clear and therefore, no harm is going to be caused, if such reference is made as requested for by the petitioner. At the same time, it is also required to be noted that Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act permits the Court to examine the hand writing itself and base its opinion on such examination with a view to arrive at just conclusion. Reference to the hand writing expert in a suit of 2007 is requested in the year 2011. As the issues are yet not cast, there is a need to interfere with the order impugned. Request is required to be acceded to.