LAWS(P&H)-1996-9-8

BALWINDER SINGH Vs. SURINDER KAUR

Decided On September 16, 1996
BALWINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
SURINDER KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of District Judge dated 26. 4. 1994 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted thereby setting aside the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the respondent's application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 18. 3. 1987.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, Smt. Surinder Kaur filed an application for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 18. 3. 1987 on the allegation that she had no notice of the suit nor any attempt was made to serve her and so the decree having been passed without affording her an opportunity of contesting the same deserves to be set aside. The claim of the applicant was resisted by the decree holder who by way of reply averred that in-fact the applicant appeared in person on 15. 10. 1986 and as well as signed on the interim order sheet, after receiving a copy of the plaint and hereinafter did not appear in the Court deliberately. This being so, the application deserves to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed regarding sufficiency of cause for setting aside of ex-parte decree: whether the applicant had been duly served and in-fact appeared in the Court and the plea of limitation. The trial Court on the basis of evidence and on comparing the signatures of Surinder Kaur on the interim order sheet dated 15. 10. 1986 with her signatures on her statement dated 6. 6. 1992 came to the conclusion that they are in the hand writing of the same person. According to the trial Court her other signatures on the affidavit, power of attorney as well as on the interim order sheet tally. Accordingly, this issue was decided against the appellant holding that there are no sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

(3.) A perusal of the order of trial Court as well as of the lower appellate Court clearly reveal that both the judicial officers on the factual aspects as well as to the inferences drawn therefrom, on each count differ. Both the Courts while arriving at a particular conclusion compared the signatures appended by Surinder Kaur on various documents. Such being the divergent view of the two judicial officers, I think it appropriate that parties be given further opportunity to examine a hind writing expert in support of their respective contentions. No doubt even after the evidence of hand writing expert, it is for the Court to come to a conclusion on the basis of information of the expert alongwith other evidence which is on record but in view of peculiar facts of the present case this appears to be the proper course. Accordingly, I accept the revision petition, set aside the order of District Judge and remand the case to the trial Court to permit the parties to examine a handwriting expert to prove or disprove the signatures of Smt. Surinder Kaur on various documents and thereafter decide as to whether she came present and appended her signatures on the crucial dated i. e. 15. 10. 1986.