AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MA/382/2016 (For Restoration)
This is an application seeking restoration of appeal which was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on 27.07.2016. As agreed by the learned counsel for the respondents, the appeal is restored to its original number. The application stands disposed of. FA/361/2011
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The main dispute in this case is as to whether the appellants/complainants had made payment of Rs.15 lakhs to the respondents on 11.9.2006 or not. In order to prove the alleged payment, the appellants/complainants relied upon a receipt and a cash payment voucher purporting to be signed by the partners of respondent No.1 Mahalaxmi Developers, namely, Sudhir Tukaram Patil and Vishwanath Balaya Swami.The aforesaid signatures according to the learned counsel for the respondents have been forged and are not genuine signatures of respondent No.2 Sudhir Tukaram Patil and respondent No.3 Vishwanath Balaya Swami. No handwriting expert was produced by the appellant/complainant to prove the alleged signatures of respondent Nos.2 & 3 on the aforesaid receipt and cash payment voucher. No expert was examined even by the respondents in support of their case that the aforesaid documents do not bear signatures of respondent Nos.2 & 3. In these circumstances it become necessary to have an expert opinion as to whether the aforesaid receipt and cash payment voucher are signed by respondent No2. Mr. Sudhir Tukaram Patil and respondent No.3 Mr. Vishwanath Balaya Swami or not. Without such an expert evidence, no firm view with respect to the genuineness or otherwise of the aforesaid documents can be taken. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the State Commission with the following directions:-
The original receipt and cash payment voucher unless already filed, shall be filed by the appellant before the State Commission on the next date of hearing.
The respondent Nos.2 & 3 shall appear before the State Commission on the next date of hearing and give their specimen signatures to the said Commission in the presence of complainants/appellants.
The receipt and cash payment voucher in question shall be sent by the State Commission to the concerned Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) of State of Maharashtra to compare the disputed signatures on the receipt and cash payment voucher dated 11.9.2016 with the specimen signatures of respondent Nos.2 & 3 as well as with their signatures on the pleadings, evidence, Vakalatnama, etc. filed before the State Commission, for giving opinion as to whether the author of the disputed signatures and the author of the specimen/admitted signatures is one and the same person or not.
The complaint shall be decided afresh by the State Commission in the light of the expert opinion within three months of the receipt of the said opinion.
The parties are directed to appear before the concerned State Commission on 12.12.2016. The appeal stands disposed of.