The right of the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal and the admissibility of comparing signatures from a photocopy were central legal points established in the judgment.

Ashok Bhan, J.

1. This is defendants revision petition which arises out of the following facts :-

Plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 6.9.1990 executed by the defendant- petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) for sale of a shop situate at G.T. Road, Near Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. Petitioner denied the execution of the agreement dated 6.9.1990 and further averred that the same was a result of a fraud. Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties, issue No. 6, which runs as under, was framed :-

"Whether the alleged agreement dated 6.9.1990 is result of fraud? OPD"

Surjit Rai, petitioner, while appearing in the witness box as DW-1 denied his signatures on the agreement in question. Respondent, thereafter, made an application seeking permission of the Court to examine a Hand Writing Expert in rebuttal on the ground that onus to prove issue No. 6 was on the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiff has a right to lead evidence in rebuttal to examine the signatures of Surjit Rai, petitioner. This application was allowed by the impugned order dated 24.2.1994 against which the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2 Before the trial Court, two fold contention was raised by the counsel for the petitioner i.e. (i) in rebuttal neither the handwriting expert nor any other evidence could be allowed to be produced as the onus was on the plaintiff-respondent to prove due execution and passing of the consideration of the agreement to sell and; (ii) even otherwise of the plaintiff-respondent had failed to place on record the original agreement, which allegedly bears the signatures of Surjit Rai, petitioner. The signatures could not be compared from a photo copy of the agreement.

3. Learned trial Court decided the first plea only with regard to the right of the respondent to lead evidence in rebuttal. It was held that the respondent was entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal to examine a Hand Writing Expert, Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. I find no infirmity in order passed by the trial Court to that effect. Trial Court did not record any finding with regard to the comparison of signatures from a photo copy of the agreement. Original agreement has not been produced on the record. In my view, signatures cannot be compared from the photocopy of the agreement because in these days of advance technology, signatures of a person can be lifted from one document and put on another document by super imposition.

5. Accordingly the impugned order, is upheld to the extent that the plaintiff respondent shall be within his right to lead his evidence by way of rebuttal to examine a Hand Writing Expert but for that the original agreement has to come on record. If the original agreement comes on the record, after taking its formal proof, the plaintiff-respondent shall be permitted to produce and examine the Hand Writing Expert to compare the signatures of the defendant-petitioner from the original document to that of admitted signatures.

6. With these observations, this revision petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.