Rebuttal Evidence--Denial of signatures on agreement to sell by respondent-seller--Application for examination of Handwriting Expert in rebuttal evidence allowed

RAMENDRA JAIN, J.

1. Through this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside order dated 01.11.2017 (Annexure P-8) of the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, dismissing his application seeking permission to examine handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assiduously argued that the learned trial court has committed a grave error in not permitting the petitioner to examine handwriting expert at the stage of rebuttal evidence holding that he was required to examine him only in affirmative evidence. He further contended that in order to arrive at a right conclusion, learned trial court should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to compare signatures of the respondent on the agreement to sell and other documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P6, by getting an expert examined in rebuttal evidence, especially when the respondent-defendant, during his cross-examination, denied his signatures thereon. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decisions in Kewal Singh versus Jagjit Singh 2007 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 631(P&H) and Jaswinder Singh versus Rajwant Kaur and others 2014 (36) R.C.R.(Civil) 942.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner observing that the hand-writing expert cannot be allowed to be examined in rebuttal evidence, especially when it was well within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time when he was leading evidence in affirmative, which, ultimately, was closed by order of the court.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon judicial pronouncements in Ram Kumar versus Raj Kumar and others, (2014-2) 174 P.L.R. 536; Gurcharan Kaur and others versus Gurjant Singh, (2017-3) 187 PLR 558 and Sukhwinder Pal Singh versus Bhupinder Kaur (2014-3) 175 PLR 20. He further contended that a party who engages a Handwriting Expert, ordinarily, he toes on his line and therefore, the application, being without any merit, is liable to be dismissed.

In support of his arguments, he has relied upon judgments rendered in Jaimal Singh and others versus Smt.Naranjan Kaur and others, (2011- 2) PLR 408 and Gulzar Ali versus State of H.P. JT 1998(4) SC 342.

4. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered view that the civil revision must succeed for the reasons to follow:-

5. A perusal of the record shows that on 15.2.2012 the plaintiff- petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5.2.2011, Ex.P4., directing the defendant-respondent to get the sale deeds registered in respect of 1/6th share in SCO No.86-87 and 1/9th share in SCO No.114-115-116, Sector 17, Chandigarh, in favour of the petitioner. He further prayed that the defendant be restrained from alienating the abovesaid properties, by way of sale, gift, mortgage, will and lease etc. to any body till the final disposal of the suit.

6. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order 18 Rule 3, CPC, seeking permission to examine Dr. Jasy Ahluwalia, Handwriting Expert, in rebuttal evidence on account of the fact that the defendant, during his cross-examination, denied his signatures on the agreement to sell dated 5.2.2011, Ex.P4 and other documents Ex.P2 to P6. Therefore, the petitioner intends to examine the Hand Writing Expert to compare signatures of the respondent on these documents to falsify his deposition to this effect. It is worth mentioning that not only did the defendant deny receipt of earnest money and part payments, but he concealed his bank details from which the cheques so issued, were encashed. However, during his cross-examination, the bankers of the defendant, on the basis of record, proved the encashment