Full Judgment
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.
(1) This civil revision has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Shrimati Meghwanti, defendant in suit No. 81 of 1969 on the file of Shri R.L. Gupta, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, against an order dated 31st August, 1971, whereby the learned Subordinate Judge rejected an application filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant praying that an identification parade may be held.
(2) The respondent Surinder Mohan, filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 1500.00 on the basis of promissory note. The petitioner filed a written statement pleading, inter alia, that the suit promissory note was never executed by her; that no consideration passed to him; that the pronote was 'under unstamped'; that she was a Pardanashin lady and her signatures have been forged through the instrumentality of one L. Jaswant Rai who was the real plaintiff behind the scene ;and that in fact the petitioner was away to Calcutta on the date of execution of the alleged promissory note and the receipt, on the basis of which the suit has been filed. The respondent plaintiff filed a replication reiterating his allegations and contentions, and it is not necessary for the purpose of this civil revision to set out the various pleas in the said replication.
(3) The respondent-plaintiff filed an application in the trial court praying that the petitioner defendant be summoned in person before the Court for recording her statement prior to the framing of issues. The trial court allowed the application and ordered the petitioner-defendant to appear in person before the Court on 26th of August, 1971. The petitioner-defendant was not able to attend the Court on that date, and the court adjourned the case to 5th of October, 1971 for the personal appearance of the petitioner-defendant.
(4) On 30th August, 1971, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, out of which this civil revision has arisen, stating, inter alia, that the respondent-plaintiff was a bogus person who did not know the petitioner-defendant at all and whom the latter did not know or ever had any dealings with, and that she heard the name of the respondent-plaintiff for the first time on receiving the summons of the suit, and prayed that the respondent-plaintiff be also ordered to be summoned in person before the Court to identify the petitioner-defendant so that the falsity of the plaintiff's case might be exposed. It was also prayed that till the holding of the said identification, the personal attendance of the petitioner- defendant may be dispensed with. The said application came up for orders before the lower court on 31st August, 1971. By his order passed on that date, the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the application observing that he did not find any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for holding an identification parade, and that the petitioner-defendant who had been ordered to appear in person on the next date of hearing should comply with the said order. It is against he said order that the present civil revision has been filed by the petitioner-defendant.
(5) Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the lower court erred in holding that there was no provision of law for holding an identification parade, and that just as an identification parade is held in a criminal case even though there is no specific provision for holding such parade in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the civil' court also could hold an identification parade under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a civil suit exercising its inherent jurisdiction in the interests of justice. The learned counsel referred to Section 9 of the Evidence Act and argued that under the said section facts which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, are relevant, and that since, according to the petitioner- defendant, the respondent-plaintiff had never seen her nor had she seen him, the court had the jurisdiction to hold an identification parade in order to see whether the plaintiff can identify the defendant. The question is not whether evidence of identity is relevant or not. The question is whether the civil court could call upon the plaintiff in the suit to identify the defendant or hold an identification parade for that purpose. The learned counsel was not able to point out any other provision of law in support of his contention. The contention is clearly untenable. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which entitles a civil court to hold an identification parade in order to see whether the plaintiff could identify the defendant. If the plaintiff does not examine himself as a witness in support of his case, it is open to the Court to draw an adverse inference against him. But there is no provision of law which empowers the civil court to insist upon the plaintiff in the suit to appear in court and identify the defendant or to hold an identification parade for that purpose.
(6) The civil revision has no merit and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.