ELDHO Vs. MANUAL JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are for review of the common judgment dated September 17, 2010 in W.P(C) Nos.4486 and 21130 of 2010. While disposing of the Writ Petitions this Court considered, in the light of contest between parties as to genuineness and validity of document terminating the licence in favour of the petitioner who among the contestants is most suitable to conduct the metal crusher unit, referred to various circumstances including the deed allegedly executed between parties cancelling the original agreement of licence and other circumstances and held that respondent who is the owner of the metal crusher unit and in whose favour the local authority has issued a licence to run the metal crusher unit is the most suitable person to conduct the metal crusher unit. Now these petitions are filed on the strength of a certificate issued by the Forensic Expert after examination of the disputed cancellation deed that the signature in it purported to be that of petitioner is not put by him. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner contends that two aspects are to be considered by this Court in these petitions for review, firstly; the Expert has opined that the disputed signature in the cancellation deed is not of the petitioner and secondly; whether respondent who has come with a fraudulent document should be preferred to the petitioner.

(2.) THE question whether report of the Expert is acceptable or not is a matter to be decided by the trial court after evidence. One cannot jump into any conclusion one way or the other based on that report alone at this preliminary stage. I leave that matter to the trial court for appropriate decision. Secondly, if the order sought to be reviewed can be sustained on any other ground, that one of the grounds based on which the order was passed is found to be not correct is not a reason to review the judgment. I stated that it is not based on the deed of cancellation alone that this Court disposed of the Writ Petitions and permitted respondent to run the metal crusher unit. This Court while considering the deed of cancellation only made a reference that learned Additional District Judge while disposing of the C.M. Appeal has after perusal of the disputed signature opined that the disputed signature is similar to the admitted signature of the petitioner. This Court only observed that the appellate court was not without power to do so in view of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. This Court referred to various other circumstances including the fact that respondent is the owner of metal crusher unit and that the licence issued by the local authority is in his favour as also the fact that considering the strained relationship between parties it is not proper to entrust the metal crusher unit to the petitioner for operation and held that respondent is more suitable than petitioner to run the metal crusher unit. THE Expert's report relied on by learned Senior Advocate cannot displace those findings. In that view of the matter I do not find reason to review the common judgment.