1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 29th March, 2006 passed by D.R.T., Allahabad in T. A. No. 151 of 2000 rejecting the application moved on behalf of the appellant Bank of Baroda for obtaining the second opinion of the Hand Writing Expert of Government of India. Briefly stated the history giving rise to present appeal is that the Bank of Baroda appellant filed an application before D.R.T., Allahabad against present respondents for the recovery of money on the basis of amount advanced to the respondents. In above case the respondent denied signatures on the documents of loan produced by the Bank before the Tribunal. In above circumstances the report of Hand Writing Expert was called for by the Tribunal in connection with signatures available on the documents filed by the Bank after obtaining sample signatures. The report from the Joint Director, Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Uttar Pradesh, Mahanagar, Lucknow dated 26th June, 2002 was received with the conclusion that the documents were not having those signatures which were sent by the Tribunal by way of admitted signatures. Thereafter, the appellant Bank moved an application before the Tribunal on 29th March, 2006 praying for appointment of a Central Government Hand Writing Expert for obtaining second opinion of expert on disputed signature. This application was opposed by the respondent before the Tribunal and by passing the impugned order above application of the appellant Bank has been rejected, feeling aggrieved with this order, present appeal has been preferred.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Amit Negi and Mr. Kushal Kant counsel for the respondents have been heard at length and the impugned order as well as the documents available on the record have been perused. Learned Counsel for the appellant had argued before this Tribunal that after the report of the expert was received, the then Counsel for the appellant Bank did not communicate it to the Bank to enable the Bank to file another application for filing expert's opinion in rebuttal and when the earlier Counsel was found guilty of negligence his name was struck off from the panel and thereafter fresh application along with an application for condonation of delay for obtaining another report of the Hand Writing Expert has been filed. His submission is that in the circumstances of this case rebuttal of the expert's opinion could not be made by obtaining another expert's report at the earliest. In support of his argument he has relied upon Maria Piedade D'Souza v. M. Narayanaswamy AIR 1984 N.O.C. 139 (Kant.), wherein Hon'ble Karnataka High Court took the view that: When the experts differ, ultimately the Court has to form its own opinion on the basis of the entire evidence brought on record. The Court also would be competent to compare the signatures and the writings under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
In this very ruling the mention had been made with regard to opinion of expert based on glaring similarities. Another ruling Panchula v.Ganeshilal Maheshwari , wherein in para 4, Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has observed as under: In view of this definition, it is clear that it cannot be laid down as a general rule that wherever a defendant chooses to deny his signatures, the plaintiff must examine a Hand Writing Expert to prove his case. Nor is the Court bound to accept the evidence of a Hand Writing Expert produced by the defendants, (sic.) its own mind to the evidence of the expert and it is open to it either to believe it or to disbelieve it.
Also ruling of the Supreme Court has been cited. These rulings are not applicable in the instant case, in the facts and circumstances of this case.
2.1 Against this the submission from the side of the respondent is that the reply l'' of the respondent to the memo of appeal is annexed with Annexure-1 (page 11 of the reply), wherein the order was passed by Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad as early as on 27th November, 2002 directing to meet the expert's report received from the Government.
According to the Counsel for the respondent this order was passed in presence of Law Officer of the Bank but it is surprising that the application for obtaining second opinion of the expert has been moved before the Tribunal concerned at a very belated stage. The fact that opportunity for rebuttal was given in the presence of Law Officer of the Bank and the entire blame has been placed on the then Counsel of the Bank. He has also argued that the above order was passed on 27th November, 2002 to rebut expert's opinion whereas the application for rebuttal by obtaining second report of the expert was moved in 2006 i.e. after a lapse of more than four years without giving any cogent reason for delay in challenging the first report of the expert after about four years.
3. After having heard the Counsel for both the parties this Tribunal is of the opinion that the appellant Bank itself is to blame for the negligence as well as for failure to take appropriate steps at the appropriate time when the D.R.T. had already issued directions. Thus, this appeal has no force and it is as such dismissed. I pass no orders for costs.