Civil Revision No.6402 of 2010 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 15, 2011. Civil Revision No.6402 of 2010 (O & M ) Balwinder Singh ….Petitioner Versus Mandeep Singh and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Parminderjeet Singh Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Plaintiff-petitioner Balwinder Singh filed a suit against defendant Lal Singh (since deceased) for delivery of possession of the land in dispute measuring 28 Kanals 14 Marlas by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.6.2000 and Civil Revision No.6402 of 2010 (O & M ) supplementary agreement to sell dated 24.7.2000 executed by Lal Singh in favour of plaintiff-petitioner Balwinder Singh with a further prayer for permanent injunction restraining Lal Singh from alienating the suit land in any manner. Respondents Mandeep Singh and Sandeep Singh are the legal heirs of defendant Lal Singh, who died during the pendency of the suit. On 6.8.2010, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application before the trial Court for directing the legal heirs of Lal Singh (defendant), namely, respondents Mandeep Singh and Sandeep Singh to give their standard signatures and specimen signatures in the Court for comparison by the handwriting expert alleging that Mandeep Singh and Sandeep Singh had also signed the agreements in question. Vide order dated 8.9.2010, the trial Court dismissed this application of the plaintiff-petitioner and closed the remaining evidence of the plaintiff by an order of the Court. It is this order passed by the trial Court which is under challenge in this revision petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I do not see any ground warranting interference in the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in the year 2001, issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were framed on 2.8.2006 and since then the case was pending for evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. During this period, as observed by the trial Court, the petitioner availed sufficient opportunities including last opportunities to complete his evidence. On 23.7.2010, last and final opportunity was granted to the petitioner by the trial Court for producing his entire evidence, but he failed to do so. On 8.9.2010, when the impugned order was passed by the trial Court, it (trial Court) completed the examination of two witnesses of the plaintiff i.e P.W.1 Civil Revision No.6402 of 2010 (O & M ) and P.W.2 and closed the evidence of the plaintiff by an order of the Court by declining the prayer of the plaintiff for directing respondents Mandeep Singh and Sandeep Singh for giving their signatures on the ground that the parties have to prove their own case by producing cogent evidence and that the suit was pending since 2001, which was being delayed by the plaintiff by adopting dilly dallying tactics. I do not see any illegality in the impugned order. If the respondents had signed the agreements in question, as alleged by the plaintiff, then it was within the knowledge of the plaintiff when he filed the suit in the year 2001. However, strangely enough, neither he impleaded the respondents herein as defendants at the time of filing of the suit nor made any such prayer after 2.8.2006 for getting the signatures of respondents compared from the handwriting expert when issues framed and thereafter suit remained pending for evidence of the plaintiff. Resultantly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being without any merit. Dated: February 15,2011. (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE