Raj Rani vs Suresh Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 17179 P&H

                                                                          -1-
RSA-2796-2022 &
RSA-2797-2022


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH
(106)
                                                     RSA-2796-2022 (O&M)
                                                Date of Decision:-19.12.2022.
Raj Rani

                                                                ......Appellant

                                     Versus

Suresh Kumar
                                                             ......Respondent

                                                      RSA-2797-2022 (O&M)

Raj Rani

                                                                ......Appellant

                                     Versus

Suresh Kumar
                                                             ......Respondent


CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
                     ****

Present:      Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the appellant.

                     ****

ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

By this common order, both the Regular Second Appeals, as

numbered above, shall be disposed, as the point in issue is identical.

CM-9615-C-2022 in RSA-2796-2022

This is an application for condonation of delay of 141 days in

filing the appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is

allowed and delay of 141 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

1 of 3

RSA-2796-2022 & RSA-2797-2022

CM-9618-C-2022 in RSA-2797-2022

This is an application for condonation of delay of 136 days in

filing the appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is

allowed and delay of 136 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

Main Appeals (O&M)

The present appeals raise challenge to the judgment and decree

dated 11.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,

Kapurthala, whereby appeal of the respondent-plaintiff has been allowed

and the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2018 has been set aside. In the

same judgment and decree, the appeal filed by the appellant qua the

findings of issue No.6 by the trial Court also stands dismissed. Aggrieved

by the same, the appellant is in the Regular Second Appeals before this

Court.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial

Court had rightly examined the entire evidence and dismissed the suit by

finding that there was contradiction in the testimony of the marginal

witnesses to the said pronote. Although the learned trial Court did not rely

upon testimony of handwriting expert which clarified that the said note and

receipt was forged and fabricated by holding that the report of handwriting

expert is not a substantive piece of evidence but still the trial Court

dismissed the suit. He further contends that the learned First Appellate

Court has reversed the findings on surmises and conjectures which has led

to decree of the suit.

Heard.

2 of 3

RSA-2796-2022 & RSA-2797-2022

It is a settled principle of law that as per provision of Section

68 of Indian Evidence Act, the execution of a document has to be proved by

examination of one witness and it is not essential that both the witnesses

should be examined. In the present case, one witness had supported the

plaintiff respondent in entirety and there was no dent in the testimony of the

said marginal witness. The plaintiffs have been successful in proving the

execution of the pronote. The second argument raised by counsel for the

appellant with regard to the non-consideration of the handwriting expert, it

is held that once the marginal witness had proved the execution of the

document, the handwriting and finger print expert who is expected to

submit report in favour of the parties approaching it, has been rightly held

to be not a substantive piece of evidence in the peculiar fact of the case that

the marginal witness had already proved the pronote.

No other issue was argued by the appellant.

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the order passed by the

learned Lower Appellate Court, which has rightly appreciated the

provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and relied upon the

positive testimony of the marginal witness, the present appeals are

dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in both the appeals

shall also stand disposed of.

(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE December 19, 2022.

Sandeep

Whether speaking/reasoned:-      Yes/No
Whether Reportable:-             Yes/No




                                 3 of 3