[205] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 24.02.2025 M/s Ganpati Estates and another …Petitioners versus Jagdev Singh alias Jasdev Singh and another ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Aayush Goyal, Advocate for the respondents.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] Challenge is to order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, whereby, application filed by the plaintiff giving direction to the defendants to give their specimen signatures has been declined.

[2] Plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that sale deed No.5858 dated 17.10.2012 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendants with respect to suit property is illegal, null, void, ineffective, nonest, and was unenforceable for all intents and purposes, as the cheques issued by the defendants as consideration of the sale stand dishonored. Further prayer was for grant of decree of possession and permanent injunction. In the alternate, plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.19,58,000/- including Rs. 11,00,000/- as the remaining sale consideration and Rs.8,58,000/- being interest. RAJNEESH SHARMA[3] Defendants have contested the suit.

[4] Plaintiff in the plaint claimed certain communications and cheques issued by defendants from time to time in discharge of the liabilities, which have been denied by the defendants. In order to prove the said documents, plaintiff filed application to examine Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert accompanied by an application seeking direction to the defendants to give their specimen signatures. The application seeking direction to the defendants to give their specimen signatures has been declined by the learned Trial Court observing as under:-

“7. I have considered the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the case file very minutely. In the considered view of this Court, first of all the plaintiff has to prove his case by standing on his own legs and has to bring the evidence by himself in order to prove his pleading. There is no doubt that the plaintiff can take the assistance of handwriting and fingerprint expert and can examine him as well, as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, in this case, the plaintiff are seeking permission of this Court to ask defendant to give their signatures/writing in English as well as in Punjabi script. As per considered view of this Court, the said direction can not be given to the defendants since defendants can not be compelled to give fresh signatures/writing for the purpose of comparison to be made by Handwriting and Finger Print Expert of plaintiff. Again it is reiterated that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and thus can not be allowed to lead evidence by compelling the defendants to give their signatures/writing in the Court for the purposes of comparison. Accordingly, the prayer made by the plaintiff in the application is devoid of merits and application for directing defendants No.1 and 2 to give their specimen writing/signatures in English as well as Punjabi script, stands dismissed and disposed of.”

[5] Mr. Singh, counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order relies upon Section 73 of the Evidence Act to submit that the Court ought to have directed the defendants to give their specimen signatures so that the same can be compared to prove the documents in dispute. In order to hammerforth his contention, he relies upon ‘M/s Guru Nanak Construction Company versus M/s Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills, Jaitu’, Civil Revision No.236 of 1976, decided on 07.05.1976, ‘Har Singh versus Krishan Gopal’, Civil Revision No.1109 of 1973, decided on 08.03.1976, ‘Lakhbir Singh versus Kulwant Singh and others’, CR No.1561 of 2022, decided on 15.09.2022, ‘Guddi Alias Kamlesh and others versus Kartar Singh and others’, Civil Revision No.2100 of 2017, decided on 13.09.2022 and ‘