Genuineness Of Document Has To Be Proved By Plaintiff Who Relies Upon It, Then It Is On Defendant To Discredit It: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently reiterated that the genuineness of the document has to be proved by the plaintiff who relies upon the document. After that, it is for the defendants to dislodge the document's credibility as a fake, sham and bogus document.

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed,

"It is well settled legal position is that initial onus is always upon the plaintiff to prove the fact and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, then onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same. In this case nothing has been discharged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not proved by adducing cogent evidence on record that he has supplied the material and thereafter payment was not made."

The State of Chhattisgarh filed the first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, assailing the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge. The Trial Court had directed the State (original-defendant) to pay Rs. 60,000 along with an interest of 6% to the original-Plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, engaged in supplying stationery and sports items.

The plaintiff had supplied goods worth Rs 61,464/- to the defendants as per their averments. To satisfy the bill amount, the defendants gave two cheques, one of which was returned with an endorsement that there were not sufficient funds in the account. After that, the plaintiff sent a legal notice under Section 80 CPC to the defendant through his counsel for releasing the payment, but they did not release the payment.

On appreciating the facts and arguments of both sides, the Court noted that it is to be seen from the material placed on record and the pleading of the parties whether the plaintiff has supplied the material; despite the supply of material, no payment has been made. It held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the work order was issued in his favor, and the genuineness of the challan has also not been proved. It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to examine the witnesses who have delivered the goods. After that, the concerned officer put his signature on the challan; the plaintiff examined no witnesses in his support.

On perusal of exhibits, it remarked that the plaintiff has not put the signature of any employee of the concerned department who has received the material. Even no cross-examination was done concerning the supply of material. Therefore, even from examining the plaintiff's evidence, it is not clear to whom the plaintiff has supplied the material and who has signed the receipt. A well-settled practice in the government department is that a supply order is always made in writing, but the plaintiff has placed no work order before the trial Court. It remarked,

"It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the signature of person who has signed the challan by adopting the course by the person who signed or wrote a document; by calling a person in whose presence the documents are signed or written; by calling handwriting expert; by calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written; by comparing in Court, the disputed signature or handwriting with some admitted signatures or writing; by proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it."

It held that the plaintiff had not taken these steps to prove the challan; therefore, it cannot be held that the plaintiff supplied material as per the challan.

It remarked that the impugned judgment violates Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. It relied on the case of Rami Bai vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, where it was held that,

"The signatures may be proved in any one or more of following modes :- (i) By calling the person who signed or wrote a document; (ii) By calling a person in whose presence the documents are signed or written; (iii) By calling handwriting expert; (iv) By calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written; (v) By comparing in Court, the disputed signature or handwriting with some admitted signatures or writing; (vi) By proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it; (vii) By the statement of a deceased professional scribe, made in the ordinary course of business, that the signature on the document is that of a particular person:"

Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court was set aside the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed. 

Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector & Anr v. M/S Hindustan Supply Agency

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 32

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order