Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANDEEP PANNU
Pritam Singh – Appellant
Versus
Amar Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts establishing the basis of the plaintiff's claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the denial of evidence comparison. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the timing of evidence presentation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. conclusion on dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
MANDEEP PANNU J.
1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to assail the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri, District Sangrur, whereby the application dated 18.07.2025 moved by the plaintiff for directing defendants No. 1 and 2 to furnish their specimen signatures and handwriting for comparison with the disputed writing dated 12.12.2001 has been dismissed.
Brief Facts
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be exclusive owner in possession of land measuring 106 Bighas 4 Biswas on the basis of a partition agreement dated 12.12.2001 allegedly executed between him, defendants No. 1 and 2, and Nikka Singh (since deceased). In the written statement, the defendants denied the execution of such writing, terming it forged and fab
The court confirmed that once a party has closed its affirmative evidence, it cannot reopen the case in rebuttal unless exceptional circumstances exist, maintaining the integrity of fair trial princi....
The court can direct a party to provide specimen signatures and handwriting for comparison if there is an admission by the party and no prejudice would be caused by such direction.
The plaintiff is entitled to present rebuttal evidence regarding a Will introduced after the closure of his affirmative evidence, emphasizing procedural fairness in the burden of proof.
The court upheld the lower court's decision allowing thumb impression comparison, highlighting that the right to rebuttal exists when new evidence is presented after the closure of opposing evidence.
The plaintiff must provide direct evidence to prove the execution of an agreement, and signature comparison is a supplementary method only when direct evidence is unavailable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff does not have a right to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff, as per the interpre....
The court has the discretion to seek expert opinion on the comparison of disputed and admitted signatures under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and there is no fixed time limit for filin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
