Skip to content


Paras Ram Vs. Raksha Devi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberRegular Second Appeal No. 119 of 1967
Judge
Reported in6(1970)DLT41
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 100(1) and 103
AppellantParas Ram
RespondentRaksha Devi
Advocates: S. Malhotra and; R.K. Gupta, Advs
Excerpt:
the case examined the non-recording of the evidence of handwriting expert under section 100 of the civil procedure code, 1908 - it was true that the evidence of the hand writing expert might be admissible as opinion evidence but then it had always been observed by the courts that the handwriting experts always try to favor their respective client - it was held that non recording of evidence did nto cause any procedural error calling for interference under section 100 of the civil procedure code, 1908. - - 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.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.....
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 : [1963]3SCR604 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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //