IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.4038 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19 .10.2011
KaramjitSingh …Appellant
Vs.
Raman Kumar & Ors. Respondents
BEFORE: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
The defendant appears to have examined , DW 2 Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert,
in order to counter the earlier report of PW 6 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert, who is an expert of repute suggesting no allegations against him.
Even otherwise, the defendant has failed to rebut the oral evidence of the plaintiffs, scribe and the witnesses, in whose presence the document was scribed and he had signed the same. Writing Ex.P2 and P.3 dated 2.4.1998 and 2.4.1999 cannot be false and fabricated one because as per record suit was filed on 8.11.2000 on the basis of the agreement dated 5.4.1997. Stipulated date for execution of the sale deed was 3.4.1998. Suit having been filed within three years from the stipulated date was within limitation and there was no need to make a repeated writing for extension of time. As such the plaintiffs cannot be said to have any intention to forge the entries to bring the suit within limitation. Consequently, the plea, that the entries were forged on the document, is proved to be incorrect. Since both the courts below have already given relief with regard to alternative relief for recovery of the amount, therefore, it would not be proper to further lessen the same.
No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination of this court.
Dismissed.