IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 300 of 2010. Date of decision: 23.8.2010 Jagdish Ram …. Petitioner Versus Hakam Ram and others. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondents: None _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 4.8.2010 whereby the application filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) for sending a document Ext.PW-2/A for comparison of the signatures of the original defendant No.1 with his admitted signatures on the written statement and power of attorney for examination by a handwriting expert was rejected. 2. The suit, in question, was filed in the year 2002. In para 3 of the suit, the plaintiff alleged that an 2 agreement had been arrived at between the parties and this agreement had been signed by the original defendant No.1 (who has since died). The defendant No.1 in its written statement not only denied the execution of the agreement but he clearly stated that it is a sham transaction not bearing his signatures which according to him had been manufactured by the plaintiff in connivance with the marginal witnesses. Therefore, in the written statement itself, the defendant No.1 had denied the signatures on the document. 3. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 2 read with order 12 Rule 3(a) calling upon the defendant No.1 to admit the execution of the agreement dated 9th May, 1999. In my view, this application was not maintainable because the defendant No.1 had very categorically stated in the written statement that no agreement had been entered into between the parties. However, in reply to this application, the defendant again clearly stated that he had not executed the document, Ext.PW2/A. He also stated in the reply that 3 the signatures appeared to have been forged on the said document. This reply was filed on 14.1.2003. 4. The matter proceeded thereafter for seven long years. Evidence was led by both the parties and only at the stage of arguments, an application under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act was filed. A copy of the application has been filed alongwith the petition. There is not a word in this application as to why this application was not filed at an earlier stage. 5. Reliance has been placed by Sh.Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff on two judgments of the Apex Court in State Vs. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 14 and G.Someshwar Rao Vs. Samineni Nageshwar Rao and anr., 2009 (14) SCC 677. There can be no quarrel with the preposition of law that the Court, if it so desires, can always send a document to a handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the parties. But in the latter judgment, the Apex Court has clearly indicated that no party should be permitted to delay the proceedings under this pretext. There is no explanation why such an application was not moved at an earlier stage. The learned Trial Court was 4 justified in rejecting this application moved at the stage of arguments. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the learned Trial Court and I see no reason to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such a case. The petition is accordingly dismissed. August 23, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge