Bakhshish Singh Bakhshi v. Tara Singh .

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a revision petition filed by the plaintiff against an order of the Sub‑Judge 1st Class, Nawanshahr dated 23 October 1989, which dismissed the plaintiff's application to lead additional evidence. The dispute arises from the defendant's denial of his signatures on a pronote, a receipt and an endorsement (together with a thumb impression). The plaintiff sought to have a handwriting expert compare signatures taken in court (where the defendant's statement was signed) with the disputed documents. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the defendant had consistently denied those signatures from the time of filing the written statement and during his evidence, so the plaintiff was not taken by surprise. The plaintiff filed the present revision petition seeking permission to lead the additional evidence. The suit underlying the proceedings is one for recovery of money. The court directed the parties to appear before the trial court on 24-9-1990.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to lead additional evidence (handwriting comparison) to rebut the defendant's denial of signatures on the pronote and receipt.
2. Whether permission to lead additional evidence should be conditional on payment of costs and, if so, the appropriate costs.
3. Whether the defendant should be afforded adequate opportunity to rebut any additional evidence led by the plaintiff.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's / Plaintiff's Arguments

• The petitioner asked for permission to lead additional evidence and offered to pay costs; counsel urged that the evidence be allowed in the larger interest of justice.
• The plaintiff accepted that he had been negligent in leading the evidence earlier but argued he should nevertheless be permitted to produce it, subject to payment of heavy costs.

Respondent's / Defendant's Arguments

• The respondent contended that the plaintiff was attempting to delay the matter and therefore should not be permitted to lead additional evidence.
• The respondent relied on the fact that the defendant had consistently taken the stand denying his signatures from the written statement onward, implying no grounds for permitting late evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the procedural posture and contentions. It acknowledged that the plaintiff had been negligent in adducing the affirmative evidence earlier and that the defendant had denied the signatures from the outset (in the written statement and in evidence). Despite this, the court found the petitioner’s counsel’s contention persuasive that allowing the additional handwriting comparison would serve the ends of justice. The court reasoned that the plaintiff would not gain by delay because the suit itself is for recovery of money. Balancing the admitted negligence against the interest of doing justice between the parties, the court concluded that permitting one further opportunity to lead the disputed evidence was appropriate, but that this should be subject to costs to penalize or account for the delay. The court therefore allowed the application on condition of payment of Rs. 1,000/-. It further directed that the defendant be given adequate opportunity to rebut the evidence the plaintiff may lead. Finally, the court set aside the impugned order of 23 October 1989 and directed the parties, through counsel, to appear before the trial court on 24-9-1990.

Holding and Implications

The application to lead additional evidence was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 as costs, and the impugned order dated 23-10-1989 was set aside.

Consequences for the parties: the plaintiff is permitted one further opportunity to lead handwriting‑comparison evidence to rebut the defendant's denial of signatures, on payment of the stated costs; the defendant is entitled to adequate opportunity to rebut that evidence. The matter is remitted to the trial court with directions to proceed accordingly and with the parties to appear on the date specified. The opinion does not announce or rely upon any new legal precedent.