IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CURATIVE PETITION NO.2134 OF 2014

IN REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 219 OF 2014
INCIVIL APPEAL NO.10972 OF 2013

(Against the order dated 28.1.2014 in Review Petition (C) No. 219 of 2014 passed
by this Hon’ble Court, filed against the order of this Hon’ble Court dated
11.12.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 10972 OF 2013: APPEALED FROM)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ashish Kumar …PETITIONERS

Versus

Abhishek Kumar …RESPONDENTS

(PAPER BOOK)

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE CURATIVE PETITIONER: Mss. Sakshi Mehrotra

 Index
S.No. Particular Page No.
1. Synopsis and list of Date A-P
2. Certified copy of the order 1-3
dated28.1.2014 in Review
Petition (C) No.219 of 2014
passed by this Hon’bleCourt
3. Certificate by the Senior 4-5
Advocate
4. Curative Petition with Affidavit 5-50
5. Annexure 1- True Copy of
Order
 SYNOPSIS AND LISTOFDATES
The petitioner seeks review of this Hon’ble Court’s judgment on the following grounds:

1. That the law under which administrative authority is constituted and exercising
jurisdiction is itself unconstitutional.
2. That the authority has wrongly decided a jurisdictional fact and thereby assumed
jurisdiction which did not belong to it.
3. A general principle which has remained unchanged is that discretionary power conferred
on an administrative authority is required to be exercised reasonably. A person in whom
is vested a discretion must exercise his discretion upon reasonable grounds. A decision of
the administrative authority shall be considered as irrational if it is so outrageous in its
defiance to logic or accepted norms of moral standard that no sensible person, on the
given facts and circumstances, could arrive at such a decision.
4. Failure to comply with procedures laid down by statute may invalidate a decision.
Procedural Impropriety is to encompass two areas: failure to observe rules laid down in
statute; and a failure to observe the basic common law rule of natural justice.
 In the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun

Original Suit No. Of 2012

Ashish Kumar Vs. Abhishek Kumar

Shri Ashish Kumar S/o Shri Banarsikumar R/o B-1005, Friends colony,
GhnataGhar, Dehradun

…...................Deponent

I, the deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirms on oath as under:-

1. That the deponent is plaintiff in the above suit and as such is fully aware of the facts deposed to
below.
2. That the true facts have been stated in the accompanying application. To avoid repetition, the
contents of the said application be treated as integral part of this affidavit.
3. That the application Under Sub Section 2 of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is
liable to be allowed.
…………….Deponent

Verification

I, the deponent above named do hereby verifies that the contents of para 1 to 4 of the above
affidavit are true to the best of knowledge & belief. Nothing material has been concealed
herewith & no part of it is untrue. So help me god.

Verified at Dehradun on 02-07-2012

…………….Deponent

CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER

In the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dehradun

(Name of the Judge), B.A., B.L.,

Subordinate Judge.

Thursday, the 20th day of June, 1978. Original Suit No. 35 of 1976.

Between:

Plaintiff.

And.

Defendant.

JUDGMENT
Suit to recover Rs. 5,337-50 towards principal and interest due on a promissory note dated (date
should be mentioned).

The averments in the plaint are as follows:-The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from
the plaintiff on... (date) for dalwa cultivation agreeing to repay the same with compound interest
at R.1.00 p.c. per hundred per mensem with yearly rests and executed a pronote on the even date.
The defendant did not repay the same inspite of demands and a notice dated... (date on which the
notice is given). Hence, the suit claiming interest at 5/2% p.a. as the defendant is an agriculturist.
3. The defendant filed a written statement contending as follows:-This defendant never borrowed
any money from the plaintiff nor did he executed the suit pronote. It is a forged one and is not
supported by any consideration. The suit is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
4. On the pleadings the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor:-

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2. Whether the defendant is entitled to compensatory costs?

3. To what relief?

5. Issue 1:-It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed Rs. 5,000/

-from him on.... (date) for dalwa cultivation agreeing to repay the same with compound

interest at R. 1.00 p.c. per hundred per mensem with yearly rests and executed the pronote Ex. A-
l on the even date and did not repay inspite of demands and a notice, Office copy of which is Ex.
A-2, issued on .......(date). It is the case of the defendant that the suit pronote is a forged one. He
denied his liability by giving the reply Ex. A-3 to the notice issued by the plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff as P.W. 1 stated that he knows the defendant from the days of his childhood, that
the defendant borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from him and executed the pronote Ex. A-l. According to
him, the defendant wrote the pronote in his own hand. DEF (Name), P.W. 2. and GHI (Name),
P.W. 3 are the attestors to the pronote and both of them supported the plaintiff. P.W. 3 is the
nephew of the plaintiff. P.W. 3's sister is given in marriage to P.W. 2's son. But, according to
P.W. 2 that marriage took place about an year ago i.e., long after the execution of the suit
pronote. P.W. 1 stated that the defendant brought P.W. 2 and 3 along with him and executed the
pronote at his house. P.W.s. 1 to 3 are residents of Malapalli and the house of the defendant, who
is a kapu, is admittedly at a distance. P.W.s 2 and 3 stated that the defendant called them on his
way and took them to the house of the plaintiff where he executed the pronote. P.W.2 is working
as a teacher, and I am impressed with his evidence. Simply because P.W.s 2 and 3 are related to
the plaintiff their evidence cannot be rejected. P.W. 1 stated that he sold 300 bags of paddy to
Gopal Raju at Rs. 50/- per bag and that cash was in his hands for about one month before he lent
Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant. According to P.W. 1 he owns Ac. 30-00 of land and he sells about
300 bags of paddy per year. His capacity to lend Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant cannot be doubted
as the defendant in his evidence as D.W. 1 admitted that the plaintiff owns about Ac. 25-00 of
wet land.

7. P.W. 1 admitted that there are two parties in the village one of Rajus and the other of Kapus.
The defendant's brother is Achhayya alias AchhiBabu. It is gathered from the evidence that
AchhiBabu is leading Kapus and Gopal Raju is leading Kshatriyas. P.W. 1 admitted that
AchhiBabu contested against Rajus in the last Panchayat Elections and was defeated and that he
and others supported Rajus. P.W.2 stated that he cannot say whether the entire Malapalli
supported Rajus. But, P.W. 3 admitted that all of them in Malapalli belongs to Raju's party.
According to D.W. 1 Panchayat Elections took place in ....(year) long after the date of suit
pronote. It has therefore no bearing on this case. D.W. 1 stated that there is enmity between him
and the plaintiff from 1966 due to elections. He admitted that neither he nor the plaintiff
contested in the elections. Though he stated that his brother AchhiBabu set up a candidate in
1966 elections he stated that he cannot say the names of the candidates. There is no personal
enemity between him and P.Ws 1 to 3. I cannot agree that P.W.s 1 to 3 have any motive to
perjure against the defendant.

8. P.Ws. 1 to 3 stated that the defendant wrote the pronote in his own hand. D.W. 1 stated that he
did not write the pronote and that the signature in Ex. A-l is not his signature. He admitted that
he is the scribe of the pronote Ex. A-4 executed by KLN (name) and another in favour of Subba
Laxmi. Ex. C-l is a copy of the suit pronote which the defendant was made to write in Court
when he made an application to send the suit pronote to an expert for comparison. On a
comparison of the writing in Ex. C-
1 with that in Ex. A-4 it is easy to see that he wrote the matter in Ex. C-l slowly and carefully to
disguise his hand-writing. On a comparison of the writing and signature in Ex. A-4 with that in
Ex. A-l and careful examination, it can be concluded without any hesitation that the defendant
wrote the pronote Ex. A-l in his own hand and signed. I do not hesitate to conclude that the
defendant set up a false plea of forgery. P.W. 1 stated that P.W. 2 and 3 signed as attestors with
the pen with which the defendant signed in Ex. A-l. P.W. 2 stated that he signed with the pen
with which the defendant signed and P.W. 3 stated that he signed with the pen with which the
defendant signed. It can be seen from Ex. A-l that the defendant and P.W. 2 signed with the same
pen but the pen with which P.W. 3 signed appears to have a blunt end. This discrepency in
evidence does not in any way affect the truth of the plaintiffs case. I am impressed with the
evidence of P.W. 1 and I have no hesitation to accept the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and conclude
that the defendant borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff on..... (date) and executed the
pronoteEx.A-l find issue 1 in the affirmative.
9. Issue 2:-In view of my finding on issue 1, it follows; the defendant is not entitled to any
compensatory costs.

10. Issue 3:-In the result, the suit is decreed with costs.

Dictated to the short-hand writer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in open
Court, this 20th day of June, 1978.

(Sd.)........ (Signature of the Judge)

Subordinate Judge.

WITNESSES EXAMINED For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

1. Sri Manish

2. Sri Sonu

3. Sri Monu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex. A-l. Date....... Promissory note executed by the Defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.
5,000/-

A-2. Date...... Office copy of the registered notice got issued by Sri.. , Advocate for the plaintiff
Sri.... to the Defendant Sri....

A-3. Date.................. Reply registered notice got issued by Sri.... , Advocate for

the defendant.

A-4. Promissory note executed by KLN and another in favour of Smt. Subba Laxmi for Rs.
1,200/-. C-l. Date....... Copy of the suit promissory note written by the defendant in the presence
of Sheristadar of this Court.

For Defendant :-Nil.... (Sd) (Signature of the Judge)

Subordinate Judge.

Verification

I, the deponent above named do hereby verifies that the contents of para 1 to 4 of the above
affidavit are true to the best of knowledge & belief. Nothing material has been concealed
herewith & no part of it is untrue. So help me god.

Verified at Dehradun on 02-07-2012

…………….Deponent