IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 22996-CII of 2009 and CR No. 5622 of 2009 Date of Decision: 4.11.2009 Virender Kumar and another ....Petitioners. Versus Vijay Kumar and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 22996-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 5622 of 2009 In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 16.9.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by them for getting the signatures of executor/witness on the agreement of sale compared with their specimen signatures was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the comparison of signatures on the agreement to sell was essential for just decision of the case. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as K.S. Satyanarayna v. V.R. Narayana Rao, AIR 1999 SC 2544 and submitted that the trial court should have given an opportunity to get the disputed signatures on the agreement to sell compared. C.R. No. 5622 of 2009 -2- The trial court while declining the application of the petitioners for comparison of signatures on the agreement to sell, in para 3 of its order, had observed as under:- “3. The application in hand has been moved by the applicants seeking the comparison of the signatures of the respondents no.1 & 2 and Satyanarain, one of the witnesses to the alleged agreement to sell with their specimen signatures. Perusal of the file reveals that the execution of the agreement was denied by the respondents in the written statement itself. In order to seek comparison of the signatures, the applicants ought to have examined the expert while their evidence was being led. The evidence of both the parties in the present case is already complete and case is fixed for rebuttal evidence and argument. In view of the above discussion, no ground is made out to allow the application in hand and the same is dismissed.” The judgment K.S. Satyanarayna's case (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not come to his rescue as the facts of that case were different from those of the present case. In view of the above and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the instant revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. November 4, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE