CR No.3059 of 2016

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

235

CR No.3059 of 2016

Reserved on : 17.11.2022

Date of Decision : 30.11.2022

Ram Kishan

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Raj Kumar

....Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the respondent.

ALKA SARIN, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure

P-3) and 30.03.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Trial Court.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

respondent filed a suit for specific performance with a consequential relief of

perpetual prohibitory injunction. The suit was resisted by filing a written

statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. The

plaintiff-respondent filed an application for granting permission to call the

handwriting and fingerprint expert to compare the thumb impressions of

Ram Kishan (defendant-petitioner) with his admitted thumb impressions.

The same was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2015. On 25.08.2015 the

defendant-petitioner was to appear in Court for giving his thumb

impressions for the purpose of comparison by the handwriting and

fingerprint expert, however, he did not turn up. Faced with the situation, Sh.

V.B. Kashyap, handwriting and fingerprint expert, on the asking of the

plaintiff-respondent, moved an application for obtaining photographs of the

JITENDER KUMAR

2022.11.30 16:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

CR No.3059 of 2016

-2-

disputed signatures of the defendant-petitioner and the photographs of the

admitted signatures on the agreement (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2) and

admitted signatures on the written statement, reply to the stay application,

vakalatnama and summons. The said application was allowed. Thereafter,

the photographs were obtained and a report was submitted by the

handwriting and fingerprint expert who had presented himself for cross-

examination on 15.09.2015. An application was moved by the defendant-

petitioner for inspection of the file and for granting permission to take

photographs of the disputed and admitted signatures for the purposes of

preparing a report. The said application was dismissed vide the impugned

order dated 23.11.2015 on the ground that defendant-petitioner had moved

an application for giving specimen signatures for the purposes of

comparison of his disputed signatures. The Trial Court held that it is quite

possible that the defendant-petitioner would try to make valuable changes in

his signatures so that the same remain un-compared with the disputed

signatures. A review application was filed by the defendant-petitioner which

was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 30.03.2016. Hence, the

present revision petition.

A perusal of the application reveals that the only permission

sought was to take photographs of the disputed and admitted signatures on

the agreement to sell, receipt and other documents for the purposes of

preparing a report. However, the Trial Court has proceeded as if the

defendant-petitioner wanted to give his specimen signatures for the purposes

of comparison of his disputed signatures.

In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to set aside the

impugned orders dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure P-3) and 30.03.2016

JITENDER KUMAR

2022.11.30 16:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

CR No.3059 of 2016

-3-

(Annexure P-4) and direct the Trial Court to decide the application

(Annexure P-1) afresh keeping in view the prayer made therein.

The present revision petition stands disposed off in the above

terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

Whether reportable: YES/NO