205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 03.11.2025 MEENA RANI AND ORS .... Petitioners VERSUS PANKAJ BINDAL .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Naraingarh whereby the application filed by the plaintiff- respondent herein to examine Handwriting Expert at the time of rebuttal evidence was allowed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondent herein filed a suit for decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.02.2011 alleged to have been executed by one Sh. Ramesh Kaushik (the deceased husband of defendant- petitioner No.1 and the deceased father of defendant-petitioners No.2 and 3 herein) qua land measuring 8 Kanal situated at Village Tapri Shaid, Hadbast No.102, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala as fully described in the plaint on payment of ₹3,50,000 as balance sale consideration as out of total sale consideration of ₹5,00,000, ₹1,50,000 having been paid as earnest money to late Sh. Ramesh Kaushik. In the written statement filed by the defendant- petitioners herein, in reply to para No.1 on merits, a specific stand taken was that Sh. Ramesh Kaushik never entered into any alleged agreement to sell dated 03.02.2011 as per his share in the land. It was further the stand that neither was there any reason for selling the entire share for a lump sum amount of ₹5,00,000 nor was the transaction at the market rate prevailing at the given time. It was further averred that Sh. Ramesh Kaushik had engaged the plaintiff-respondent as his lawyer to file a civil suit and that the agreement to sell was a result of manipulation in order to usurp the lawful rights of the legal heirs of Sh. Ramesh Kaushik after his death. Vide order dated 16.07.2015 the following issues were framed by the Trial Court :

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for possession as prayed for ? OPP (ii) If issue no. 1 is proved then whether the plaintiff is entitled decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants ? OPP (iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form ? OPD (iv) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD (v) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD (vi) Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the Hon’ble Court ? OPD (vii) Relief.

3. During the course of evidence, PW-2 Abhay Kumar Goel appeared as an attesting witness and proved the agreement to sell dated 03.02.2011. In his cross-examination this witness clearly stated that the vendee and the vendor had not signed in his presence and that the signatures were already taken prior to his signatures. After the defendant-petitioners had closed their evidence, an application was filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein to examine a Fingerprint Expert in rebuttal by taking photographs of the disputed and the standard signatures of late Sh. Ramesh Chand (as mentioned in the application). Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order the said application was allowed holding that the plaintiff- respondent had initially discharged his burden by examining the attesting witnesses, notary public and stamp vendor and that the defendant-petitioners had hit the plaintiff-respondent by surprise by examining the Handwriting Expert and as such the plaintiff-respondent should be allowed to examine his own Handwriting Expert. Aggrieved by the same the present revision petition has been preferred by the defendant-petitioners herein.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners would cont