A court has the jurisdiction to order examination of a disputed signature by a Hand Writing Expert, even if the application is filed at a belated stage, if the genuineness of the signature is specifically denied and there are contradictions in the submissions of the parties.

Sudip Ahluwalia, J.

This revisional application is directed against the order No. 61 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Title Suit No. 78 of 2004 of his Court on 11.11.2010. In passing the impugned order, the Ld. Judge had been pleased to reject an application filed on behalf of the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, praying for having the alleged signatures put by one of the plaintiffs to be examined by the Hand-Writing Expert. It may be mentioned that the alleged signatory had denied the signatures during his evidence as PW-1, on being confronted with the relevant documents.

2. It transpires that the aforesaid application was resisted on behalf of the plaintiffs/opposite parties basically on the grounds that it was filed at a belated stage and was actually designed to delay and drag the suit, and that there was actually no need for examination of the alleged signature of PW-1 on the documents including an Angikar Patra relied upon by the petitioners/defendants. These are the gist of the objections, as seen on perusal of the written objections, being Annexure-F to the application, filed against the petitioners application for examination of a Plaintiff's signatures by the Hand-Writing Expert.

3. Now, the Ld. Court below has in its impugned order specifically noted certain submissions in this regard raised by the Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties/plaintiffs which incidentally were not mentioned in the actual written objections. The relevant observations of the Trial Court in this regard are:

"....Two documents are filed on behalf of the defendants along with firisty.

Ld. Advocates of both the parties are present by filing haziras.

The record is taken up for hearing. Heard both sides. Ld. Advocate for the defendants submits that previously between the parties sitting took place for the settlement of share in the suit property with the interference of the Gram Panchayat and other respectable persons of the locality and the suit property was measured by the Amin and he prepared a sketch map pointing out the share of both the parties to the suit. He further submits that Angikar Patra was prepared and in the said Angikar Patra contains the signatures of the plaintiffs. He submits that during evidence P.W.1 refused his signature on the sketch map prepared by the Amin. He submits that both the documents are very vital for the proper adjudication of the suit and the signature appearing on those two documents should be examined and compared by the Govt. Hand writing Expert with the signature of the plaintiffs after obtaining those in open Court.

Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs prays for rejection such baseless petition stating that the plaintiffs have filed the suit before the Court for proper adjudication of their claim and prayer. He submits that P.W.1 has admitted the signature of plaintiffs in blank paper. He submits that Panchayat office or village salish do not take place of the Court of law and many illegal things happened in such places. He submits that defendants are trying to delay the disposal of the suit on the pretext of examination of signatures of the plaintiffs by Govt. hand-writing expert. He prays for rejecting such prayer.

Perused the materials on record coupled with two separate documents filed by the defendants. This Court shares the same view with the view expressed by the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff. This Court also observes that plaintiffs have come before the Court for settlement of their claim and they are not bound abide by any decision made by the panchayat or village Salish. Because those two are not empowered to settle any right, title and interest of the citizens and that is the sole duty of the Court.

Now considering all such facts and circumstances and as well as considering the materials on record, I find no justification for examination of signature of the plaintiffs by Govt. hand writing expert. Accordingly the prayer of petitioner dated 31.7.09 is rejected.

T