Civil Revision No. 1700 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1700 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 12 , 2010 Ram Singh ...... Petitioner Versus Mohinder Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.S.K.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against the order of the trial Court declining permission to the petitioner-defendant to examine the handwriting expert to give his report on the signatures of the plaintiff on some earlier alleged sale instances. The learned trial court rejected the application on the ground that the evidence of the petitioner was closed as far back as 15.09.2009 and that the said order had become final. The learned trial court also relied upon the fact that no explanation was given by the petitioner as to why the handwriting expert could not be examined at the original stage. Learned counsel has informed me and fairly stated that after the closure of the evidence the petitioner had also filed an application for additional evidence which too was rejected. On my query he has also admitted that even in the said application for additional evidence it was not prayed that a Civil Revision No. 1700 of 2010 2 handwriting expert be examined. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in Civil Revision No. 5839 of 2009 decided on 12.10.2009 Charanjit Kaur and others v. Kirpal Singh and others wherein the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiffs was closed after giving them four opportunities. This court allowed them permission to examine the handwriting expert because in that case the defendants had not yet led any evidence. The second case relied upon by the learned counsel is Civil Revision No. 798 of 2009 decided on 17.08. 2009,Yashwant Rai v. Usha Rani and another. In that case also it was the plaintiff who wanted to examine handwriting expert in his evidence in rebuttal which was allowed by this Court. The third case relied upon is Civil Revision No. 2304 of 2009 decided on 25.5.2009, Lachhu v. Chuhra and another. That was also a case where the plaintiff- petitioner was allowed one more adjournment to produce handwriting expert. There what had weighed with the Court was the fact that the matter had been adjourned for the remaining evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. The present case stands on a totally different footing. Here the evidence of the petitioner had been closed which order had become final. Apart from that even an application for additional evidence was filed - in which prayer for examining handwriting expert was not made - and the same was also rejected and that order was also allowed to become final. Thus, now what the petitioner is seeking is the third opportunity which cannot be countenanced under law. Consequently the revision is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 12, 2010 sunita