Decided on February 19,2003



K.S. Kumaran, Chairperson - (1.)THE appellants are the defendants in C.A. 220/ 96 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). THE respondent Bank has filed the claim against the appellants/defendants for the recovery of about Rs. 19 lakhs and odd. THE appellants/defendants have filed written statement denying the execution of Exhibits A/15 and A/16, the balance confirmation letters. According to them, the signatures and the seal found therein are forged. THE appellants/defendants filed a miscellaneous application dated 10.10.2001 praying that Exhibits A/15 and A/16 be sent for comparison with the admitted documents Exhibit A/8 and report by the Government Examiner of the Questioned Documents, Railway Board Building, Shimla or another institution. This application was opposed by the respondent-Bank, and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by the impugned order dated 25.10.2001 dismissed the said application observing that the matter is very old, that on earlier occasions the documents were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory but the said Laboratory did not compare the same and send the report, and, therefore, it would not proper to send these documents for examination to the Forensic Laboratory. He also observed that it will not be proper to send the documents to the Central Government institution, as that is also likely to take much time, and that the Tribunal can itself compare the documents (with the admitted document).
(2.)Aggrieved the appellants have filed this appeal. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the same, and the appellants have also filed their rejoinder.
I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.

(3.)THE learned Counsel for the appellants contends that as early as 8.7.96 the appellants/ defendants had filed an application for the very same purpose, that the said application was allowed by order dated 4.3.97 directing that the signatures in Exhibits A/15 and A/16 be examined by the Hand Writing Expert Mr. Krishna Charan, and that Mr. Krishna Charan had also filed his report. He also contends that the said expert was also cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank. This has been conceded by the respondent/ plaintiff also in its reply to the appeal.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.