IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.438 of 2009 Date of decision : July 24, 2010 Tripta Devi and others …Petitioners. Versus Roshni Devi and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioners are defendants in a suit for possession of a portion of a building, which is alleged to be outside the urban area. Suit has been filed by respondent No.1. Plea taken by petitioner No.1, in the written statement, is that she has been in possession of a portion of the building as a tenant, even before the plaintiff-respondent became its owner, by purchase from the previous owner Majalsi Ram. According to her, she had been inducted as tenant by said Majalsi Ram and that she was in possession of some receipts of rent furnished by said Majalsi Ram. 2. Majalsi Ram was summoned as a witness and examined by the petitioners. He denied his signature on the rent receipts. Petitioners then moved an application, in Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the trial Court, for summoning said Majalsi Ram, for obtaining his specimen signatures, so that the same could be sent to a Handwriting Expert, for comparison with the signatures on the rent receipts. Said application has been dismissed, with the observation that allowing the application will amount to collecting evidence for a party. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. View taken by the learned trial Court is not correct. It is the duty of the Court to reach the truth and for this purpose it can summon anybody, even a person, who is not cited as a witness by either party, in view of the provision of Section 165 of the Evidence Act. There cannot be a better option than the comparison of purported signature of Majalsi Ram with his standard signature, for proving whether the rent receipts are singed by him or not. This would not mean collecting evidence for the petitioner. Opinion of the Expert may go against or in favour of the party applying for such opinion and so it cannot be said that prayer by a party for comparison of signatures or handwriting, if allowed, would mean assisting a party in collection of evidence. 5. In view of the abovestated position, petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to obtain specimen signatures of Majalsi Ram, in case his standard signatures are not available on record and …3… to send such specimen or standard signatures for comparison with his purported signatures on the receipts. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, in view of the disposal of the main petition. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17th September, 2010. July 24, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J