R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.K. Gupta, who appeared for the contesting respondent No. 3. This petition is directed against the order dated 19.8.2000 whereby the trial court has allowed the application filed by respondent No. 3 to call the postman to prove the signature on the acknowledgment receipt and order dated 28.6.2000 by which the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) IT appears that the respondent 3 had filed S.C.C. suit No. 118 of 1997 against defendant -petitioner for ejectment and recovery of rent, on the ground of default. In the said suit the petitioner filed written statement. In the written statement it was specifically not stated that notice was not served upon the petitioner. In paragraph No. 12 of written statement only the validity of notice was challenged. The defendant when examined on oath, he has denied the service of notice. Immediately thereafter the respondent No. 3 filed an application for summoning the postman to prove the signature of the petitioner on the acknowledgment receipt. The said application was opposed by the petitioner contending that it was in the facts and circumstances of the case not necessary to examine the postman. The trial court after hearing the parties allowed the application and permitted the said respondent No. 3 to examine the postman on oath by order dated 19.8.2000. Challenging the validity of the said order, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Court below, which was also dismissed on 26.8.2000 and hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below has acted illegally in allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 3 to call postman for proving the signature of the petitioner on the acknowledgment receipt. According to him, it was not necessary to examine the postman. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that in view of the statement made by the petitioner on oath it was necessary to prove the signature on the acknowledgment receipt in accordance with law. Therefore, it has become necessary to call the postman failing which service of notice upon petitioner could not be proved and that would have been prejudicial and fatal for the case of the respondent No. 3.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the petitioner has specifically denied the service of notice upon him in his statement on oath, therefore, he was required to prove the signatures of the petitioner in accordance with law, which existed on the acknowledgment receipt, therefore, it was necessary to call the postman who served the notice upon him and whose presence signature was made to avoid the controversy and lengthy argument on the question of variance between pleadings and proof. However, if the disputed signatures are not proved, even if the case of the plaintiff -respondent is proved, the suit is bound to fail. In my opinion, the trial court did not commit any error of law or jurisdiction in allowing the application of respondent No. 3 to call the postman for the aforesaid purpose. By calling the postman, petitioner is not to suffer any loss because he would also be in a position to cross -examine him. The trial Court did not commit any error of law or jurisdiction in allowing the application to call the postman. The revisional court also rightly dismissed the revision. No case for interference before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.;