Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs Amar Singh And Others on 14 September, 2012
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Civil Revision No. 6805 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6805 of 2010
Date of decision : September 14, 2012
Om Parkash ....Petitioner
versus
Amar Singh and others ....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for respondent no. 1
Mr. Nitin Sarini, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2 and 3
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiff Om Parkash has assailed order dated 27.9.2010, Annexure P/2 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon thereby dismissing plaintiff's application Annexure P/1 for directing defendant-respondent no. 1 to give specimen signatures and handwriting for the purpose of comparison.
Plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 27.9.2001 allegedly executed by defendant no. 1. In application Annexure P/1, it was alleged that in cross-examination of Civil Revision No. 6805 of 2010 -2- plaintiff's witnesses, it was suggested that cutting and addition in subsequent writing dated 18.12.2001 have not been signed by defendant no. 1 and the date under his signatures on the agreement dated 27.9.2001 has been written later on. Consequently, the plaintiff wanted specimen signatures as well as specimen handwriting of the date from defendant no. 1 for comparison with those on the agreement and the subsequent writing.
Defendants without filing reply opposed the aforesaid application.
Learned trial court dismissed the application vide impugned order Annexure P/2 and also consequently closed the evidence of the plaintiff because no other evidence except examining handwriting expert was to be produced by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the written statement, defendant no. 1 had not specifically denied his signatures on the impugned agreement and subsequent writing and had also not pleaded that the date had been written later on, but in view of cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses, necessity for moving application Annexure P/1 arose. Relying on judgments in Kirpal Singh and another versus Vipin Kumar, Civil Revision No. 6805 of 2010 -3- 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 669; Mr. Budumuru Vijayanandh versus Smt. Potnuru Bhagyalakshmi, AIR 2005 Andhra Pradesh 35 and Bhaskaran versus Sankaran, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 730, counsel for the petitioner contended that Court has power to direct a party to give specimen signatures, writing or thumb impressions for the purpose of comparison. Relying on another judgment in Jai Pal versus Banwari and Anr., 1991(2) Cur. L.J. 461, the said contention was reiterated because in that case, even additional evidence was permitted for this purpose.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 1 contended that respondent no. 1 has specifically denied the impugned agreement as well as subsequent writing in the written statement and therefore, application Annexure P/1 moved by the plaintiff for specimen signatures and writing was highly belated and has been rightly dismissed.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Prima facie it appears that there is no categorical denial of signatures of defendant on impugned agreement although it was pleaded that the oral agreement was reduced to writing in proforma in which the blanks were not filled up. However, signatures on the subsequent writing were denied in the written statement. In these circumstances, defendant no. 1 should have been directed to give specimen signatures and handwriting for the purpose of comparison to enable the plaintiff to examine handwriting expert for this Civil Revision No. 6805 of 2010 -4- purpose. The plaintiff could have been subjected to costs for delayed filing of the application. Judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner also support the plea of the petitioner in this regard. Trial court has not dismissed the application on the ground of delayed filing thereof, but has dismissed the application on the ground that it is for defendant no. 1 to prove the alleged subsequent insertion of date in the agreement if he disputes the same. However, the application could not be dismissed on this ground. Impugned order is, thus, illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error.
Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/2 passed by the trial court is set aside. Application Annexure P/1 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner is allowed subject to payment of ` 2500/- as costs precedent. Defendant no. 1 is directed to give his specimen signatures and hand writing regarding the date. Plaintiff/petitioner shall be granted only one reasonable effective opportunity to examine handwriting expert as witness. Nothing observed in this order shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. File of the trial court be sent back at once. Parties are directed to appear there on 15.10.2012.
( L.N. Mittal )
September 14, 2012 Judge
'dalbir'
Civil Revision No. 6805 of 2010 -5-