The court upheld the trial court's order denying expert examination, emphasizing finality in previously adjudicated matters under supervisory jurisdiction.

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/defendant for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, whereby the application dated 27.08.2024 moved by the petitioner for permitting a handwriting and fingerprint expert to inspect and take photographs of the promissory note and receipt was dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. It is submitted that a civil suit was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of ₹13,60,000/–. The suit was on the basis of a promissory note and receipt alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent and signed by certain witnesses. The petitioner filed written statement submitting that no loan was obtained by him and that the promissory note and receipt were forged and fabricated and that there were material alterations and cuttings therein. It was further pleaded that the respondent is doing the business of commission agent, and TRIPTI SAINI that the petitioner used to sell his crops with him, and that the promissory note was lying with the plaintiff as security and the same was misused. Issues were framed in the suit wherein issue No. 8 was framed as to “whether there exist material alterations in the demand promissory note-cum-receipt dated 18.12.2019 propounded by the plaintiff? OPD.”

3. After the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, the petitioner/defendant moved an application seeking permission to allow a document and handwriting/fingerprint expert to inspect and take photographs of the note and receipt. It was submitted that the burden of proof on issue No. 8 regarding material alteration in the promissory note and receipt was upon him and accordingly, permission be granted to take photographs of these documents by expert in the presence of court staff or opposite counsel.

4. The learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground that earlier also a similar application had been moved which was dismissed on 15.09.2023, and the revision filed against that order was dismissed by this Court on 14.02.2024. The trial court further observed that in the application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC the petitioner sought permission to deposit diet money for summoning witnesses including Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, without disclosing that permission to examine the expert had already been declined earlier. The Court also held that though in principle expert opinion can be sought even at a belated stage, the same does not apply to the facts of this case because the permission to examine the expert had already been declined by this Court. Accordingly, the application was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2025.

TRIPTI SAINI Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that the impugned order is wholly erroneous. It is argued that the earlier application was dismissed on the ground that no specific document had been mentioned and the purpose of examination was not explained. Therefore, a fresh application was moved in which specific details of the documents to be inspected were clearly stated and the purpose was explained. It is submitted that the handwriting and fingerprint expert’s inspection is necessary for a just and fair adjudication of the issue framed on material alterations, and, therefore, the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the application merely by referring to the earlier dismissal.

Findings

6. I have considered the submissions and examined the record. It is not in dispute that an earlier application for the same relief had been dismissed by the trial Court and that the order was upheld by this Court on 14.02.2024. In that order this Court had noticed that the application did