YASH PAL Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 20-2-2003 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gidderbaha dismissing the applicant of the defendant-petitioner filed under Order 26, Rule 10-A read with Section 151 of the Code. The prayer made in the application was that the disputed pronote and receipt 11-2-1998 be sent to Forensic Science Lab. Govt. of N.C.T., Delhi to find out the age of the ink used on the stamps.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for recovery of Rs. 5,83,400.00 by propounding a pronote and receipt dated 11-2-1998. The defence taken by the defendant-petitioner is the plaintiff-respondent has manipulated the disputed pronote and receipt in his favour by alleging that it was executed on 11-2-1998. The defendant-petitioner has claimed that he had signed the stamps and had given the figure of Rs. 4,70,000.00 on the blank pronote and receipt to one Shri Sushil Kumar Singla of M/s. Singla Trading Company, Sirsa many years before 11-2-1998. The plaintiff-respondent has also examined one Shri Navdeep Gupta, an expert from Patiala, to prove the signatures of the defendant-petitioner who has stated that the age of the ink used in the signature cannot be determined as he did not possess the instrument of polyview system. He further stated that the age of the ink could be successfully determined on these disputed document by the Forensic Science Lab., Delhi. The defendant-petitioner has also claimed that it would be necessary for just decision of the case that the document be examined from the forensic Science Lab., Delhi with the object of determining the age of the ink. The application was opposed. The Civil Judge dismissed the same by recording the following order :

(3.) Shri Rajesh Bhatheja, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Civil Judge suffers from patent illegality because the examination by the Forensic Science Lab. would have vital effect on the result of the case. The learned counsel has pointed out that if the age of the ink is determined then the truth will come out that the defendant-petitioner never appended his signatures on the date recorded by the plaintiff-respondent on the pronote and receipt. According to the learned counsel as the amount involved is very heavy, such an opportunity should not have been declined.