Decided on March 06,2006



P.K.Deb, - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15th October, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad on two petitions filed by the respondent Bank one on 30th May, 2003 and other on 4th August, 2003 by which the respondent Bank had prayed for sending of some documents filed by them and kept in safe custody to be sent to the Government handwriting expert for their opinion on comparison of signatures and by the other petition they wanted a direction to be given to the appellant-defendants to produce some relating documents of their business of hire and purchase. On both the prayers being allowed by the present impugned order, the appeal has been filed.
(2.) The facts of the case are not necessary to be reiterated as the disposal of this appeal does not require so. This much can be said that the appellants had opened up the current account with the respondent Bank and it is an allegation of the respondent Bank that the appellants had indulged in taking overdrafts facilities but the same had not been paid, hence the recovery application was filed. The plea of the appellant-defendants was that they had never taken any overdraft facility and they run their business from theirown sources. The respondent-Bank had submitted after the written statement was filed by the appellants some documents such as opening of Bank account card and some cheques allegedly signed by the defendant-appellants and were asked to be kept in safe custody. Those documents had never been placed on the record for the perusal of the appellants. On the same date when the petition was filed for sending the documents for expert's opinion, then the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal passed the orders on the body of the petition and also in the order sheet that the respondent Bank may take action by themselves.
(3.) THE appellants' plea before this Appellate Tribunal is that the petition filed for expert's opinion have been rejected by the observation made by the then Presiding Officer and as such when no review application has been filed, no order can be passed reviewing the earlier order as the prayer was already rejected. THEir second submission is that the documents of their business as asked to be filed by the appellants have got no relevance with the fact in issue of the T. A. No. 328/2000 and as such the direction to is against all norms and also against the provisions of CPC and that of the Evidence Act, 1872. On the other hand it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the prayer made for expert's opinion was being rejected by the Tribunal, rather it was observed that the respondent Bank can take steps on their own meaning thereby that the respondent Bank may get the expert's opinion either privately or by any other means and the second petition was filed with a prayer that either the documents, which were in the custody of the Court be sent to the Government handwriting expert, Lucknow for comparison or be supplied to the Bank so that they can get the opinion of their own handwriting expert. So the question of res judicata or review as claimed from the side of the appellant is not maintainable.;

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