Delhi High Court
Paras Ram vs Raksha Devi on 11 November, 1969
Equivalent citations: 6 (1970) DLT 41
Author: P Safeer
Bench: P S Safeer
JUDGMENT
P.S. Safeer, J.
(1) This regular second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks to impugn the decree made by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, on the 7th of April, 1964. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on clause (e) of Section 100(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. His contention is that there has been a procedural error which has been committed by the Local Commissioner appointed by the trial Court for going into accounts between the parties inasmuch as the Local Commissioner did nto permit Paras Ram, the present appellant, to produce the handwriting expert. My attention has been drawn to the relevant provisions in Order Xxvi of the Code of Civil Procedure and the argument is that the Commissioner in such a situation was exercising the powers of the Court and was bound to examine evidence which might have been sought to be produced. If a reference is made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in then it becomes obvious that a procedural error so as to attract the provisions of clause (e) of Section 100(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure must be sub-stantial and the one which occasions prejudice and injustice to the aggrieved party.
(2) I have personally seen the documents regarding which Paras Ram wanted to examine the so-called handwriting expert. I am convjnced in my sub-conscious mind as well as on occular estimation of Paras Ram's admitted and disputed signatures that they are of one and the same person. I asked Mr. Malhotra, counsel for Paras Ram, to closely examine the very signatures and then make the submissions regarding the prejudice which the non-examination of the expert witness may have caused. Although he could notield his ground, his argument lost all elcquence.
(3) The Local Commissioner did nto rely upon the evidence of the handwriting expert produced by the opposite party. Whatever the situation may have been before the trial Court the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur whose judgment is under consideration dealt thoroughly with the concerned documents. He carefully scrutinized them and considered every pros and cons of the case and then made the observations which are contained in paragraph I I of the impugned judgment. After taking into account the submission in respect of an amount of Rs. 200.00 the amount due to Paras Ram has been found as being Rs. 708.U9 P. That is a finding of fact. The Judgment does nto call for any interference.
(4) The grievance regarding the nonrecording of the evidence of the handwriting expert. It is true that the evidence of a handwriting expert may be admissible as "opinion evidence" but then it has always been observed by the Courts that the handwriting experts produced always try to favor their respective clients. Non-recording of evidence regarding the pen lifts, the pen pressures and various kinds of strokes or stops does nto in my view cause any such procedural error which may call for interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(5) With these observations I hereby dismiss this second appeal but there will be no order as to costs.
