Gowri Shankar Gupta And Ors. vs Canara Bank And Ors.

Ranjit Singh, J

Appellant herein had filed two applications (I.A. Nos.151/2013 and 152/2013) before the Tribunal blow. The prayer in I.A. No. 151/2013 was for sending certain documents to Central Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of signatures of Prem Lata Gupta impleaded as defendant No.2 in the O.A. The prayer made in the I.A. No. 152/2013 was for grant of permission to cross- examine the Bank's witness (AW-2). Both these applications have been dismissed by the Tribunal below. Aggrieved against this, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

The prayer in I.A. No. 151/2013 for sending the documents to Forensic Science Laboratory was made on the ground that the Bank had proceed specimen signature care of late Prem Lata Gupta where she had signed as 'Prem Lata' with single 't' while writing 'Lata' but on the document PW 2/19 the signatures of the guarantor were made with double 't' ('tt') while writing the word 'Lata'. Plea is that on the guarantee document double 'tt' has been written in the signatures whereas on the specimen signature card the word 'Lata' is written with single 't'. On this count it was pleaded that the signatures where double 't' ('tt') was used were forged and to ascertain this forgery documents were required to be sent for the purpose of comparison.

The plea for cross-examining the Bank's witness was made on the ground that the Bank has stated in the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act that Prem Lata had executed renewal deed on 20.1.2003, whereas, Prem Lata had died on 9.9.2002. On this basis, it was pleaded that Prem Lata Possibly could not have signed the renewal deed and for proving this, cross-examination of Bank's witness was needed.

While declining the prayer for sending the documents to Forensic Science Laboratory, the Tribunal has noticed that signature of Prem Lata Gupta on specimen signature card is made with single 't' whereas on the guarantee document the word 'Lata' is written with doubt 't' ('tt'). The Tribunal has noticed that the Bank has produced several other documents where Prem Lata had signed with single 't' and photograph of Prem Lata is affixed on the card and on a letter evidencing deposit of titled deed late Prem Lata had signed using single 't' while writing the word 'Lata'. Even the extract of Mortgage Register produced by the Bank had been signed using single 't' Guarantee covering letter was also signed using single 't' so was the guarantee agreement dated 10.11.2000. From this, the Tribunal has concluded that the Bank had no intention to commit fraud by forging the signatures of Prem Lata Gupta and it could not have done by using double 't' ('tt') and could easily have forged the document using single 't' while signing. The Tribunal, therefore, did not find any valid reason for sending the documents for examination by the forensic science expert as prima facie no case of forgery could be made out.

In view of large number of other documents containing the signatures of late Prem Lata Gupta, the view which the Tribunal has formed is fully justified and is also found reasonable. It defies any logic to allege that the Bank would need to forge any signature of Prem Lata. A number of documents had been signed by Prem Lata and it is not the case of the appellants that in all these documents a forgery has been committed by the Bank. What for and why the Bank would be interested in committing forgery is not explained in any manner. Merely on the allegation that the signatures of Prem Lata Gupta were forged that too, on the ground that double 't' was used while writing the word 'Lata' is not sufficient reason. Accordingly I do not find any reason to interfere with the view formed by the Tribunal below. I do not find any merit in the plea raised by the Counsel for the appellants on this count.

The prayer in the application seeking permission to cross-examining the Bank's witness is primarily declined on the ground that the fact which the appellants would like to elicit had already been conceded. As already noticed the prayer for cross-examination of the Bank's witness is made on the ground that Prem Lata Gupta could not have made renewal deed on 20.1.2003 as mentioned in the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act as she had died prior thereto on 9.9.2002. The Tribunal found that the Bank had nowhere stated in the pleadings that Prem Lata Gupta had executed the renewal deed on 20.1.2003. The Bank had also produced no document in this regard. This fact was simply mentioned in the notice issue under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The Counsel for the Bank conceded that this fact had been wrongly recorded in the noticed under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal thus was justified in observing that once the Bank had admitted this to be a wrong statement in the notice then no purpose would be served if cross-examination of the witness was permitted. The Bank's witness never deposed before the Tribunal that Prem Lata Gupta had signed the renewal deed on 20.1.2003. That being the position, it is not understood as to why and for what purpose the appellants would still wish to cross-examine the Bank's witness.

The plea that the loan availed was of Rs. 25 lacs but in the letter or deposit of title deed the mount was shown to be Rs. 35 lacs is also explained and on this ground also there was no need of permitting cross-examination of the witness.

Once the fact which the appellants wish to discover stands conceded, it would have been futile to permit the cross-examination. The prayer in this application also thus was rightly rejected and would not call for any interference.

In view of above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is so ordered.