Madhya Pradesh High Court
MP/491/2024 of NAINSINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GOPALSINGH Vs PRAKASHCHANDRA on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 491 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1.NAINSINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.GOPALSINGH S/O NAINSINGH RAJPUT, AGEDABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSNAPAKHEDA TEHSIL ALOT DISTRICT RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH)GOPALSINGH S/O NAINSINGH RAJPUT, AGEDABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSNAPAKHEDA TEHSIL ALOT DISTRICT RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.NAINSINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.PRATAPSINGH S/O NAINSINGH RAJPUT, AGEDABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSNAPAKHEDA TEHSIL ALOT DISTRICT RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH)PRATAPSINGH S/O NAINSINGH RAJPUT, AGEDABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSNAPAKHEDA TEHSIL ALOT DISTRICT RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.NAINSINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.KAILASHIBAI W/O RAMSINGH JI, AGED ABOUT 38YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWORK NAPAKHEDATEHSIL ALOT DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYAPRADESH)KAILASHIBAI W/O RAMSINGH JI, AGED ABOUT 38YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWORK NAPAKHEDATEHSIL ALOT DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYAPRADESH)4.NAINSINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.ARJUNSINGH S/O NAINSINGH RAJPUT, AGEDABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSNAPAKHEDA TEHSIL ALOT DISTRICT RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH)ARJUNSINGH S/O NAINSINGH RAJPUT, AGEDABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSNAPAKHEDA TEHSIL ALOT DISTRICT RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH)
5.NAINSINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.LABUBAI D/O NAINSINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFENAPAKHEDA TEHSIL ALOT DISTRICT RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH)LABUBAI D/O NAINSINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFENAPAKHEDA TEHSIL ALOT DISTRICT RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH)
6.NAINSINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.RESHAMBAI D/O NAINSINGH RAJPUT, AGEDABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFENAPAKHEDA TEHSIL ALOT DISTRICT RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH)RESHAMBAI D/O NAINSINGH RAJPUT, AGEDABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFENAPAKHEDA TEHSIL ALOT DISTRICT RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH)
7.NAINSINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.ASABBAI W/O BHERUSINGH, AGED ABOUT 45YEAR S , OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGEASABBAI W/O BHERUSINGH, AGED ABOUT 45YEAR S , OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE
SINDHLIA TEHSIL BAROD DIST AGAR (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY MS. ARCHANA MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
PRAKASHCHANDRA S/O SHRIKISHAN JI GOYAL, AGEDABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS SHIVAMVASTRALAYA, RAJENDRA CHAUK ALOT DISTRICTRATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed thefollowing:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of theConstitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2023, wherebythe application filed by the original defendant under Section 45 of the IndianEvidence Act, 1872 has been dismissed.
02. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the plaintiff - Prakashchandra filed a suit against defendant - late Nain Singh for recovery ofRs.2,60,000/- along with interest. According to the plaintiff, he sold cloths tothe defendant valued Rs.1,99,800/- on 11.05.2015 and issued a bill, which wassinged by the defendant and aforesaid transaction was also recorded in theledger maintained by the plaintiff. The aforesaid goods were sold on the creditbasis but the defendant did not pay the amount to the plaintiff, hence, the causeof action accrued for filing of the suit.
03. The defendant filed a written statement denying the liability to pay thesaid amount. He filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian EvidenceAct for sending the documents for verification of the signature as he is an
illiterate person. The application filed on 07.09.2019 remained pending for threeyears. Meanwhile, the defendant expired, his legal heirs were brought on recordand they applied for amendment in the written statement. The permission wasgranted and accordingly, written statement was amended. Now the applicationcame up for consideration and the has been dismissed on the ground that afterthe death of defendant, sample of specimen signature cannot be obtained.Signatures of the defendant on affidavit and written statement are available andthe Court has taken responsibility to compare the same and at present, there isno need for examination of the signature by the handwriting expert, hence,dismissed the application.
04. As on today, the stage for examination of signature has not come,under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court may examine thatsignature and after recording of evidence if it is found that the signature is liableto be examined, the Court suo motu may direct for examination of the signatureby the handwriting expert. At this statge, I do not find any reason to interferewith the order passed by the Court below as the same neither suffers from anyinfirmity nor illegality.
05. In view of the above, Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Ravi
(VIVEK RUSIA)JUDGE