IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3848 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: June 02, 2010 Inderjeet Singh …..Petitioner versus Jaspal Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the petitioner .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: The petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking setting aside of order dated 21.5.2010 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby he dismissed an application for summoning of handwriting and fingerprint expert. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that summoning of expert was necessary for the just decision of the case. According to him, the court below ignored from consideration the facts and circumstances of the case while dismissing the application. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that suit was instituted on 12.5.2005 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7.12.2001 in respect of certain land situated in the area of village Kotli Than Singh, District Jalandhar, alternatively, praying for refund of earnest money. The Civil Revision No.3848 of 2010 - 2 - defendants denied the execution of agreement. The plaintiff did not examine any handwriting and fingerprint expert despite the fact that he was aware that defendants had denied their signatures on the agreement in question. The trial court, thus, dismissed the application preferred by the plaintiff on the ground that instead of leading evidence in affirmative to prove execution of agreement, the plaintiff had chosen to do so in rebuttal. I do not find any legal infirmity with the order passed by the court below. It is evident that trial of the case has been pending since 2005 and plaintiff has moved the instant application after a lapse of 5 years. It is inexplicable why the plaintiff did not examine the witness, now sought to be summoned, while leading evidence in support of his case. It appears that the instant application has been moved only with a view to delay the proceedings. I, thus, find no ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the court below. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. June 02, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE