HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 306 of 2010 Decided on: 3.12.2010 Vishal Verma ……… Petitioner/defendant. Versus Babu Ram ………Respondent/plaintiff. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr.Rupender Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: M/s Y.K. Thakur and Vishal Mohan, Advocates. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/defendant against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nahan, dated 18.12.2009, allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for comparison of the specimen handwriting of the petitioner/defendant. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for possession and he wants to prove the three documents, one is the agreement and two are the receipts, allegedly executed by the defendant and bear his signatures. The main objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned trial Court as well as before this court was in regard to the fact that the application does not lie under Section 45 of the Evidence Act under which it was filed. The learned trial - 2 - Court ignored the objection and allowed the application treating the same to have been filed under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The application lies under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and as such there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. However, the admitted signatures of the petitioner/defendant are already on record on the Power of Attorney and the written statement filed by him and these can be sent for comparison and there is no necessity of the defendant being asked to give his fresh specimen signatures. The application filed by the petitioner is accordingly dismissed with some modification, as above. The record of the case be sent forthwith to the learned trial Court alongwith a copy of this judgment. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 4.1.2011, who shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 3, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge