IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

114 CR-559-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 23.03.2026 DHILPREET SINGH GILL ....PETITIONER VERSUS PRITAM KAUR THROUGH HER LRS AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)

Present : Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1(ii).

(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (ORAL)

1. This revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner/decree-holder under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon, in EXE-40-2022 vide which application filed by the respondent/JD (judgment debtor) for directing petitioner/DH (decree holder) to provide his specimen signatures before the Executing Court has been allowed.

2. Mr. Karandeep Singh, Advocate has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1(ii) and filed his power of attorney, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

4. The suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 09.10.2015. Thereafter, execution petition was instituted by the petitioner/DH in which sale deed has already been executed and only possession remains to be delivered. During pendency of the execution petition, an application was moved by defendant/JD to the effect that petitioner/plaintiff has moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in another suit pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and his signatures in the present execution petition and on the above said application are altogether different. Accordingly, a prayer was made to direct the petitioner/DH to provide his specimen signatures for comparison, which has been allowed by the Executing Court.

5. However, the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner-DH has already been decreed and execution petition has been filed by him in which sale deed stands executed and only possession remains to be delivered to him. As to whether, his signatures in the present execution petition do not tally with his signatures on an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by him in another civil suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has no bearing on the present execution petition. The petitioner/DH has admitted his signatures on the execution petition and comparison of his signatures is not at all required for the disposal of the execution petition. If aggrieved, respondent/JD may move an application for comparison of signatures in the civil suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The learned Executing Court has thus committed grave illegality and manifest error while allowing the application directing the plaintiff/DH to furnish his specimen signatures and the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 is thus not sustainable.

6. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 is hereby set aside.

7. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

23.03.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)

JUDGE Vishal Vardhan