IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.664 of 2009 Date of decision : June 18, 2010 Sher Singh and another …Petitioners. Versus Mangli Devi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : M/s O.C. Sharma & Ravinder Thakur, Advocates. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Plaintiffs-Petitioners moved an application for comparison of signature of testator Deep Ram on his purported Will, set up by the defendants-respondents, with his admitted signatures. Application was labeled as one under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendants- respondents opposed the prayer. They stated that evidence had already been led by the parties. 2. Learned trial Court has dismissed the application, vide impugned order Annexure P-5, holding that the application ought to have been moved under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and not under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 4. The mere fact that the application was stated to be one under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could not have been a ground for rejection of the prayer made therein. Will that has been set up by the defendants- respondents is not admitted to be genuine by the plaintiffs- petitioners. Therefore, prayer of the plaintiffs-petitioners for the comparison of signature on the disputed Will with the admitted signatures of the testator should not have been disallowed. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the plaintiffs- petitioners, before the trial Court, for comparison of the signature on the disputed Will with the admitted signatures of the testator is allowed. Trial Court shall get the signature on the Will compared with the admitted signatures of the testator, from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla, of course, on payment of requisite charges by the plaintiffs-petitioners. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of, as having become infructuous. June 18, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J