ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 22nd January, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC readwith Section 138 of Indian Evidence Act.

(2.) Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that the petitioner defendant Ashok Kumar DW-1 was examined by the defendants-respondents to defend his case. This witness is said to have admitted his signatures on one document Agreement to Sell, when shown to him during his cross-examination. After conclusion of cross-examination, learned counsel for the defendant submitted an application stating that he had wrongly admitted his signatures on document (Ex.-1) to be his own as the document was not properly shown to him and it was shown from some distance, whereas that document in-fact did not bear his signatures as the signatures had already been opined to have been forged as per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, in such a situation, filed an application imploring the court to permit him to re-examine the witness DW-1 Ashok Kumar. That application stood dismissed by the learned trial court. The order, whereby the application stood dismissed has been impugned by the petitioner by way of the instant writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the defendant DW-1 Ashok Kumar had inadvertently or under a misconception admitted his signatures to be his own on a document, agreement to sell during his cross-examination but the fact is that the admission was, in entirety contrary to the existing true position as the document, Agreement to Sell (Ex-1) did not in-fact bear his signatures. The FSL report was already on record and that too evinced the signatures of DW-1 Ashok Kumar to be forged. The witness, in fact admitted the signatures of his own for the simple reason that the signatures were shown in the pigeon hole from a distance. The defendant wanted to rectify the mistake having been committed in the cross-examination by way of adducing evidence again in the re-examination and, accordingly, defendant filed an application under order 18 Rule 17 of CPC readwith Section 138 of Indian Evidence Act, which was dismissed by the Court. In view of this state, the impugned order is found to be totally arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law, which deserves to be set-aside.