IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.165 of 2010 Date of decision : August 3, 2010 Chaman Lal …Petitioner. Versus Kapoor Din …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner/defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 9th April, 2010 of learned trial Court, whereby his application for comparison of writing on the cheque, upon which the claim of the plaintiff-respondent is based, with plaintiff’s writing and his own writing, has been rejected. 2. Petitioner approached the trial Court, for getting the writing on the cheque compared with standard writing of himself and that of the respondent, from some expert. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Learned counsel representing the plaintiff- respondent submits that several opportunities were given to the defendant-petitioner to lead evidence, but he failed to avail of those opportunities and when the case was fixed for Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 9th April, 2010, which was the last opportunity granted to him, for leading evidence, he moved application for getting handwriting on the cheque compared with specimen writings of the parties, with a view to escaping the rigor of the order that no more opportunity was to be given to him to lead evidence. It is also his submission that occasion for comparison arises only after the parties lead their evidence. Another submission made by him is that when the defendant- petitioner admits his signature on the cheque, there is no need for the comparison of the writing on the cheque. 5. None of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent is strong enough to reject the prayer made by the defendant-petitioner. Petitioner’s specific plea is that blank cheque, signed by him, was handed over by his brother Sanjay Kumar to the plaintiff-respondent, in his absence. His plea is that he owed only a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff-respondent and his brother Sanjay Kumar told the plaintiff to fill in an amount of Rs.20,000/- only, but the plaintiff filled in an amount of Rs.50,000/-. 6. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. As a sequel to the acceptance of this petition, application moved by the petitioner, for comparison of the writing on the cheque with his own and plaintiff’s specimen writings is allowed. It is also directed that petitioner’s brother Ajay’s specimen writing shall also be sent for comparison with the writing on the cheque. Trial Court shall obtain specimen writings of all the three …3… persons and send the same alongwith admitted writings, if any, available with the trial Court, for comparison with the writing on the cheque, in question, to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents at Shimla. Expenses for comparison shall be borne by the defendant-petitioner. He shall be given one week time for depositing the expenses. If he does not deposit the expenses, his application for comparison shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, having become infructuous. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12th August, 2010. August 3, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J