C.R. No.1112 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1112 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.08.2009 Smt. Shanti Devi .....Petitioner Versus Laxmi Narain Sharma ....Respondent Present: Mr. R.S. Sailani, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The revision petition is against the decree passed in Civil Appeal No.79 of 2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar. The suit related to recovery of money on hand notes alleged to have been executed by the defendant. The trial Court found the documents to be not true and dismissed the plaint. The plaintiff preferred the appeal which affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. It is this judgment and decree of the Appellate Court which is in challenge before this Court. 2. The judgment had been rendered on 24.01.2004 and by virtue of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 2002, Section 102 of Civil Procedure Code bars any such appeal or any decree where the subject matter of the original suit is for money C.R. No.1112 of 2004 (O&M) -2- does not exceed Rs.25,000/-. Admittedly, the claim in suit is less than Rs.25,000/- and therefore, the second appeal is not maintainable. The revision is, therefore, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. In my view, what is prohibited by law through one procedure cannot be scuttled by another procedure unless the parameters for interference under Article 227 are satisfied. Unless it is a case of error in jurisdiction or illegality that vitiates the decree, there shall be no scope for judicial interference against a judgment of a final court of appeal in respect of a money claim which is less than Rs.25,000/-. I have gone through the decree of the Appellate Court and the decree of dismissal is on a factual reasoning that the transaction as alleged by the plaintiff could not have been true and the plaintiff's reliance on the documents for enforcing the money claim was liable to be rejected. 3. In the grounds of revision, it has been stated that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the trial Court had not given sufficient opportunities to bring the evidence of handwriting expert. In a case where a document was alleged to be forgery, the burden is always on the plaintiff. It is urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the plea of forgery having emanated from the defendant must have been proved by the defendant. Such a contention is erroneous. Forgery is in the eye of law an instrument that is non est and any one who affirms the instrument to be true and who seeks an enforcement shall be bound to prove the same. The burden of proof can never shift as would be evident from bare reading of Section 101 of the Evidence Act. This has also been succinctly brought out in a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh C.R. No.1112 of 2004 (O&M) -3- Singh (2006) 3 SCC 558. 4. The civil revision is wholly without merit and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 07, 2009 Pankaj*