Suit for
recovery—Plaintiffs, in the present case, have examined witnesses, proven
entries in the books of accounts and also proven the acknowledgements duly
signed by the defendant—The defendant, on the contrary, except making a bald
denial of the averments, had not stated anything else—That apart, nothing was
put to the witnesses in the cross-examination when the documents were
exhibited—He only came with a spacious plea in his evidence which was not
pleaded—Held, the High Court has fallen into error in holding that it was
obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs to examine the handwriting expert to
prove the signatures—Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 8 Rules 3, 4 and
5—Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 101, 102, 34 and 45.
Click here to download the full text of the judgment
No comments:
Post a Comment