HOTEL RACHINA Vs. J&K BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 19.04.2002 propounded by the learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases) Srinagar, whereby the application of the petitioner -defendant for referring the signatures of the defendant on D. P. note dated 16.08.1993 and on application dated 24.12.1988 to some expert for his opinion, was dismissed.

(2.) IT appears that in a suit by the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, that culminated to the stage of plaintiffs evidence after the filing of the written statement, and on framing the issues consistent with the contents and contour of their pleadings, an application came to be initiated by the petitioner -defendant for referring the signatures, on the D.P. note and on the application, to some handwriting expert for his opinion, alongwith her admitted signatures in alleging that the signatures on the aforesaid two documents having been attributed to her which in fact were not signatures. The Bank, however, resisted the application of the petitioner -defendant on the ground that the defendant having not taken any such plea with regard to the forgery of her signatures on the D.P. note and on the application in her written statement, no evidence can be allowed to be created at this stage. It was further pointed out that in reply to para 7 of the plaint, the execution of the debt confirmation having not been denied specifically, and the same amount is stated to having been admitted by the defendant. It was further contended that neither the D. P. note nor the letter dated 24.12.1988 pertaining to the debt confirmation have been disputed in the written statement and in such an event, the application cannot be allowed. The trial court, after hearing the parties and going through the pleadings and record of the file, found that no such question has been put to the witnesses examined by the plaintiff with regard to the genuineness of the documents in cross examination. This stand having been taken by the petitioner -defendant without any justification, at this stage, renders the application untenable, both legally and factually, and the application was, accordingly, dismissed on 19.4.2003, which became the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(3.) HEARD learned counsels appearing for the parties and considered the rival contentions in context with the material available on record, touching the matter in controversy meticulously.