CR No. 8355 of 2010. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No. 8355 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 22.12.2010 Kamaljeet ....Petitioner. Vs. Ranbir Singh and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. ****** HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) CM No. 32499-CII of 2010. Application is allowed as prayed for. CR No. 8355 of 2010 The defendant is in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned trial court on 04.10.2010, whereby the plaintiff was permitted to examine handwriting expert to prove vakalatnama filed by the petitioner in civil suit titled as M/s Dhanna Ram Amit Kumar Vs. Ram Sarup. In the cross-examination of the petitioner, the said vakalatnama was put to the petitioner and the petitioner denied signatures on the said vakalatnama as that of the petitioner. Since the petitioner denied the signatures on the vakalatnama in another suit, the plaintiff has sought to examine handwriting CR No. 8355 of 2010. 2 expert to prove the said signatures of the petitioner on the said vakalatnama. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plaintiff was aware of the controversy and should have examined handwriting and fingerprints expert in his affirmative evidence. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead evidence so as to fill up the lacuna in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that specimen signatures of the petitioner were taken in the Court and handwriting and fingerprints expert has been examined, therefore, plaintiff cannot be permitted to examine same handwriting expert again to prove the signatures of the petitioner on the vakalatnama. I do not find any merit in the said arguments raised by the learned counsel for petitioner. The controversy in the suit is in two parts. Firstly is the signatures of the petitioner on the receipt in the present suit. The plaintiff led his evidence in affirmative to prove such fact and the expert has been examined to prove the said fact. However, to prove signatures of the petitioner in another suit, the plaintiff has sought to examine handwriting expert. The signatures on the said document were put to the petitioner in his cross-examination, but he has denied the same. Therefore, it is necessary for the plaintiff to examine handwriting expert again to prove his signatures on the document, which is not part of the suit. The signatures of the petitioner are sought to be proved on the vakalatnama, which is not in suit inter parties. Therefore, in CR No. 8355 of 2010. 3 order to prove such signatures it is necessary for the plaintiff to examine handwriting expert. Such evidence would be relevant and necessary for the proper decision of the suit. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial court which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) 22.12.2010 JUDGE aj