AJAY TANEJA PROP. OF M/S TANEJA INTERNATIONAL vs RAJAN WAHI PROP. OF WAHI JEWELLERS

Judgment text excerpt

$~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 29th, August, 2025 + CM(M) 1667/2025 & CM APPL. 54212-54214/2025 AJAY TANEJA PROP. OF M/S TANEJA INTERNATIONAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shantanu Awasthi, Mr. Shikhar Mittal, Advocates. versus RAJAN WAHI PROP. OF WAHI JEWELLERS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Samantora with Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff appears on advance notice. 2. A very short point is involved here. 3. The case is otherwise at the stage of final arguments but the defendant was having reservation with respect to his own signatures, allegedly, appearing on the invoice in question. In the written statement also, he has denied having signed any such invoice. 4. The original invoice had been filed by the plaintiff in the complaint filed by him under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 in which the defendant was the sole accused. 5. Earlier, the defendant had sought opinion of handwriting expert based on “photocopy of the invoice” and such handwriting expert i.e. Dr. A K Gupta, entered into witness box as DW-4. 6. However, noticing the fact, that the abovesaid opinion had been given Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1667/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:30.08.2025 14:25:28 on the basis of photocopy of invoice, the same expert was requested to give “fresh opinion based on comparison with the original invoice”. 7. Armed with fresh opinion, an application was made before the learned Trial Court seeking examination of DW-4-Mr. A K Gupta afresh, but such request has been declined. 8. After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, when aske