JAGESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA Vs. LAPPA DHANBAHADUR GORKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against a decision of the Court of Small Causes, Chhindwara, giving to the plaintiff - applicant a decree for Rs. 20 only against the non-applicant.

(2.) IT was alleged by the plaintiff that on 27th September 1963 the defendant-non-applicant borrowed from him Rs. 300 agreeing to repay the sum together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and that the receipt of this amount was acknowledged by the defendant by passing a receipt in his favour on that date and further that the defendant had failed to repay the amount despite the service of a notice. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed to recover Rs. 300 together with Rs. 12 as interest thereon.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties I have formed the opinion that this case must be remitted to the lower Court for further trial. The crucial issue in this case was whether the four receipts tendered in evidence by the defendant were forged or genuine. If they are genuine, then it would be obvious that the plaintiff-applicant has told a falsehood in saying that the receipts were not passed by him and do not bear his signature. If the receipts are held to be genuine, then the defendant's version has to be accepted. If, on the other hand, the receipts are held to be fabricated or forged, then it is plain that the defendant has committed forgery or at least has used the four receipts knowing them to be forged documents. The question whether the receipts are genuine or forged is not one which can be decided in the present case on the bare statement of the plaintiff that they are forged or of the defendant that they are genuine. The burden of establishing the plea of repayment and the passing of the receipts by the plaintiff was undoubtedly on the defendant. He should have discharged this burden by summoning a handwriting expert to prove that the receipts bore the plaintiff's signatures. But if he failed to do so, then in the present case the lower Court itself should have under Order 16, rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, of its own accord, summoned a handwriting expert to give evidence with regard to the signatures appearing on the receipts and their genuineness or otherwise. Such a course was absolutely essential in the present case as it has now become very common for parties to deny too readily their signatures on documents tendered in evidence by the opposite party.