Civil Revision No.4968 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4968 of 2009 Date of decision: September 10, 2009 Dharam Pal …..PETITIONER Versus Baljit and others …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Dheeraj Bali Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. The present revision, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 11.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Karnal, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for permission to get the signatures of the defendant-petitioner on the agreement to sell dated 14.6.2004 compared by a Handwriting Expert, was allowed. Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell has been filed by the plaintiffs-respondents against the defendant-petitioner. While opposing the suit, the defendant-petitioner asserted that the agreement to sell dated 14.6.2004, purporting to carry his signatures in English, was not executed by him, as he used to put his signatures only in Hindi. During his cross-examination, the defendant while appearing as DW1, Civil Revision No.4968 of 2009 -2- stated that he had never put his signatures in English. In the same breath, he also stated that he could sign in English as well. It was on account of the said fact that the plaintiffs-respondents while leading evidence in rebuttal, prayed to the learned trial Court to obtain the specimen signatures of the defendant-petitioner in English so that the same could be used for being compared with the one, which appeared on the agreement to sell. The argument submitted by learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner that as the plaintiffs had already led their evidence in affirmative regarding the genuineness of the agreement to sell, they could not lead evidence in rebuttal by obtaining his specimen signatures in English, cannot be accepted as it was only during his cross- examination that he admitted the fact that he could also sign in English, though his consistent case was that he had been signing in Hindi only and never signed any document in English. A perusal of the statement of the defendant-petitioner while appearing as DW1, which has been placed on the record, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, would reveal that though he had filed reply dated 7.3.2007, executed power of attorney dated 5.7.2005 in favour of his counsel, filed an application for setting aside the exparte proceedings and had put his signatures on those documents after understanding the same, yet he stated that his signatures did not exist on any of those documents. Presumably, all those documents bore his signatures in English and just to avoid admitting those signatures to be his, he had to back-track by claiming that his signatures did not exist on these documents. Had he admitted his signatures in English, those could Civil Revision No.4968 of 2009 -3- have been used by the plaintiffs-respondents for the purpose of obtaining an opinion from the Handwriting Expert as to whether his signatures in English appearing on the agreement to sell, matched with his admitted signatures. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court in granting permission to the plaintiffs-respondents for getting the specimen signatures of the defendant-petitioner in English and getting them compared with the one appearing on the agreement to sell, from the Handwriting Expert. Resultantly, the revision is dismissed. (T.P.S.MANN) September 10, 2009 JUDGE Pds.