Keshav Paliwal v. PSR Construction

1. This petition is filed under Section 482/483 read with Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 1oth October, 2011 of leaned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby application of the Petitioner seeking admission/denial of documents was dismissed.

2. The Respondent had filed a complaint against the Petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(in short the NI Act) in the year 2001. The said complaint was on the allegations that three cheques of Rs.5,00,000/-(five lakh) each were given by the Petitioner to the Respondent/Complainant as towards the settlement. Out ofthose, one cheque on presentation got dishonoured with the remarks "payment stopped by the drawer". The said case was at the state of final hearing and disposal when the application under reference was filed by the Petitioner herein. ~ ·.-! ~..:_, I ~ ~' ':: -" I ·;-!; -~ '--'., •, ·-~ I 2012:DHC:8030 s

3. The document which was sought to be produced and put for admission/denial by the Petitioner was pay-in-slip of the bank dated 17ili August,

2007. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate disallowed the application observing that the pay-in-slip pertained to PSG Constructions Company and not the PSR Constructions i.e. the Respondent herein. It was also observed that this pay-in-slip was dated 7ili August, 2007 and was with the Petitioner, but had not been produced at the time of trial and particularly at the time of statement of the Petitioner and that seeking to produce the same after delay of about 11 years, was nothing but the delaying tactics ofthe Petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to urge that this was relevant and necessary for the just decision of the case in as much as the dispute regarding the final settlement between the parties was the subject-matter of the arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitrator.

5.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute that the complaint that was filed against the Petitioner was by M/s PSR Constructions and that the pay-in-slip dated 7ili August, 2007 related to two cheques of M/s PSG Constructions. Further, the number of cheques mentioned in the said pay-in-slip did not tally with any of the three cheques which were given by the Petitioner to the Complainant and one of which was the subject matter of the complaint. The compromise deed to which reference was made by the learned counsel also mentioned the same three cheques which were mentioned !', ~·..J., I:(' -" '' ' ' l_•.j_, -;- ~ I I L______.c b by the Respondent/Complainant in its complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The said compromise deed dated 30th March, 2001 was between the parties herein M/s PSG Constructions was not a party to the said compromise. That being so, the said pay-in-slip had nothing to do with the Respondent/Complainant as it neither pertained to the cheque in question nor to the Complainant Company. That being so, there was no occasion for the Complainant to be asked to admit or deny this pay-in-slip. Further, in any case, the said pay-in-slip is dated 71 h August, 2008 and was in possession of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was examined in the year, 2010 in the said complaint and he did not choose to produce the said pay-in-slip during his testimony. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly observed that pay-in-slip has no relevance to the cheque in question or the Complainant and in any case had not been produced during the trial for several years.

7. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The petition being frivolous in nature is dismissed with the cost ofRs.10,000/-. ~~~ M.L. MEHTA, J. MAY 08, 2012,- '<~ '.. '.. '·. --'< r-':;-J I, i r.:; I,' ~~~ I