HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 100 of 2011 Decided on: 8.8.2011 Gian Lal ……… Petitioner. Versus Balkrishan Rawat ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner: Mr.Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): Present petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant against the order, dated 5.3.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jubbal, Shimla dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the cheque for comparison. The prayer made by the petitioner was that the cheque be sent to the expert for seeking his opinion whether the name, date and amount in words and figure of the cheque in question has been filled by the petitioner or not. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. It is clear from a perusal of the facts of the case that the defendant/applicant had not disputed his signatures on the cheque in question. The dispute in question is only in regard to the amount of cheque as to whether it was filled in the hand of the applicant/defendant or not. ________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 5. My attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent to a decision of this Court passed in Cr.MMO No.160 of 2010, dated 14.3.2011, titled Rajiv Bansal versus Pankaj Sabarwal, wherein this question was considered by this Court and after referring to the case law, it was held that the cheque in question cannot be sent for comparison and it is for the accused to prove as to whether the amount was filled in by him or not. 6. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court does not call for an interference by this Court and the present petition is dismissed accordingly. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 1.9.2011. A copy of this order alongwith the record of the case be returned to the learned trial Court forthwith. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. August 8, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge