##PAGE1##

110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-7620-2018 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 29.01.2026

BALBIR SINGH (DECEASED) THR LR .... Petitioner

VERSUS

M/S VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT AND ORS .... Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.10.2018 whereby the

application filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for examining of a

handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence was allowed.

2. Briefly the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery on the basis of an agreement to sell

dated 29.07.2006. The agreement to sell did not form part of the documents

appended with the plaint. A written statement was filed, a copy of the

agreement to sell was attached by the defendant-petitioner herein, wherein it

was stated that name of the purchaser was not filled in. Issues were framed.

Thereafter an application was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for

production of the original agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006 or in the

AMAN JAIN

2026.01.30 09:22

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgment

CR-7620-2018 (O&M) -2-

alternative for granting permission to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to lead

secondary evidence. The said application was dismissed vide order dated

26.05.2016 and the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was not granted opportunity to

lead secondary evidence. Thereafter the defendant-petitioner got a

handwriting expert for opining on the document Mark D1 which incidentally

was the same document qua which the secondary evidence was sought to be

led by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. Since the application for secondary

evidence filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was dismissed, therefore, the

plaintiff-respondent No.1 had no opportunity to examine a handwriting expert

qua Mark D1. The Trial Court vide detailed order dated 06.10.2018 allowed

the application permitting the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to examine

handwriting and fingerprint expert to rebut the report of the handwriting and

fingerprint expert examined by the defendant-petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend that

the application could not have been allowed as the plaintiff-respondent No.1

was to prove the agreement to sell in the affirmative and having failed to do

so, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to lead the evidence in

the rebuttal.

4. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

plaintiff-respondent No.1 would contend that in the present case the

agreement to sell did not form part of the plaint. An application was filed by

the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for direction to the defendant-petitioner herein

for production of the original agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006 or in the

alternative for granting permission to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to lead

AMAN JAIN

2026.01.30 09:22

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgment

CR-7620-2018 (O&M) -3-

secondary evidence. The said application was dismissed vide order dated

26.05.2016 and the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was never afforded an

opportunity to lead secondary evidence to prove the said document. Though

the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was not permitted to lead secondary evidence

qua agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006, however, the very same copy of the

agreement to sell was placed on the record by the defendant-petitioner which

is marked as Mark D1. It is further the contention of the learned senior counsel

that the defendant-petitioner got a handwriting expert for opining on the

document Mark D1 hence the necessity for filing the application for

examining a handwriting expert in rebuttal.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for

recovery based on the