Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - Even though arguments have been heard in all the three revision petitions separately on the asking of the counsel for the respondent which was not opposed by the petitioners, claiming that the matter in dispute in all the three revision petitions was separate but after hearing the counsel for the parties, it has been found that the parties in all the three matters are the same and even the matters are closely connected with each other and thus, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For convenience and clarity, facts have been taken from CR No.1967 of 2012. This civil revision petition filed by the defendants, petitioners herein, is directed against order dated 28.2.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the lower court whereby the application (Annexure P-5) for allowing applicant-defendant Sukhdev Singh for giving his writing and signatures in the court in the presence of handwriting and fingerprints expert for the purpose of comparison of disputed handwriting and signatures on receipt Ex.P1, has been dismissed.

3. A suit was preferred by plaintiff Jarnail Singh, respondent herein against M/s Jang Singh and Company through its partner Sukhdev Singh, the defendants, petitioners herein, for recovery of Rs.2,50,588/- (Rs.1,94,254/- as principal amount and Rs.56,334/- as interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1.12.2004 to 1.5.2007) was filed. The suit was based on a receipt regarding sale of crop by the plaintiff, respondent herein, at the shop of the defendants which document was denied in its execution by the defendants making allegations that the said document of 1.12.2004 was false and fabricated and had been prepared by the plaintiff in collusion with the witnesses. In short, defendant No.1 in the suit (petitioner No.1 herein) had categorically denied the signatures on the said writing.

4. To prove that the said writing had not been executed by him and signatures thereon were never appended by him, by way of application (Annexure P-5), defendant Sukhdev Singh sought permission to give his specimen signatures before the court in the presence of handwriting and fingerprints expert to enable the said expert to compare his signatures which request was strongly resisted by the plaintiff. After hearing the parties, finding no merit therein, the application was dismissed by the lower court.

5. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the paper books.

6. Counsel for the petitioners-defendants has urged that to prove that the document is false, fabricated and is forged one, there is no other method by which the petitioners can prove the document to be forged.

7. Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, on the other hand, has urged that the defendants want to create evidence in their favour and thus, are trying to mislead the court and the application was rightly rejected by the lower court.

8. It is not disputed that the writing in dispute has been propounded by the respondent-plaintiff. Once this document has not been admitted and has, rather, been denied vociferously, it is for the respondent-plaintiff to prove the said document to have been genuinely executed by defendant Sukhdev Singh.

9. In this backdrop, the application of defendant Sukhdev Singh is nothing but a clever move to manipulate the evidence in his favour. The court has nowhere denied him the opportunity to prove the disputed document to be forged or fabricated as claimed by him but the methodology which the defendant wanted to adopt, has been disallowed to him. Defendant No.1 Sukhdev Singh (petitioner No.1 herein) wanted to give his signatures in the presence of the court to the handwriting and fingerprints expert for comparison of the same with the signatures on the disputed document. This procedure is not permissible in law.

10. The concerned defendant may get his signatures of yesteryears, when the dispute was not even pending between the parties, to be produced from the relevant s