IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1581-2026(O&M)

Date of decision: 18.02.2026 Joginder Singh ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Mohinder Singh & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Kiranpreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner (through VC).

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff laying challenge to the order dated 06.01.2026 (Annexure P3) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, in Civil Suit No.346 of 2019 titled as “Joginder Singh Vs. Mohinder Singh & Others”, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking examination and comparison of dispute signature/impression/handwriting through an expert, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed Civil Suit dated 21.05.2009 (Annexure P1) for declaration, possession and permanent injunction. The respondents/defendants had filed written statement dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure P2). Thereafter, in October 2025, the petitioner had moved the instant application (Annexure P4) to get examined and compared the disputed signatures of Jarnail Singh with his standard specimen signature.

The defendants had filed reply dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P5) to the said application. Vide impugned order dated 06.01.2026, application of the petitioner for examination of signature has been dismissed.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application of the petitioner for examination and comparison of the disputed signature/thumb impression/handwriting of Jarnail Singh through an expert, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court primarily on the ground that the same has been moved at a highly belated stage of the proceedings when the matter is already fixed for plaintiff evidence. Learned counsel submits that the said finding is erroneous and has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner as the expert comparison is essential for the just and proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. Thus, the impugned order is wholly illegal and perverse as the denial of such examination deprives the petitioner of a valuable opportunity to substantiate his case by scientific and independent evidence, which alone can conclusively assist the Court in arriving at fair and proper finding regarding the authenticity of the disputed document. It is argued that it is a vital piece of evidence involved in the matter and its exclusion causes prejudice to the petitioner and results in failure of justice. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Perusal of record shows that by way of the instant application (Annexure P4), the petitioner is seeking “to get examined and compared the disputed signatures/thumb impressions/writings of Jarnail Singh Numberdar present on WILL dated 19.05.1983 with his/her standard/specimen signatures/thumb impressions/ writings present in the judicial file/summoned record. The applicant wants to get examined the alteration/addition/tampering in NA.” A bare reading of the above shows that the petitioner has made no mention regarding which document bears the standard and admitted signature/thumb impression/writing of Jarnail Singh. It is not disputed that no admitted signature/thumb impression/writing of Jarnail Singh was available on judicial file. Thus, the application of the petitioner lacked material particulars as there was no admitted standard signature against which the petitioner could have made the comparison/examination. As such, it has been rightly concluded by the learned trial Court that “In the absence of admitted or proved standard material, the very foundation for comparison by an expert is missing. Therefore, no useful purpose is served by sending do