CR No.188 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.188 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 29.03.2010 Om Parkash .. Petitioner Versus Rai Singh Jhinga .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr. Yogesh Kumar Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate for the respondent . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order declining the permission to petitioner to examine hand-writing expert to compare the signatures of one Sh.Laxmi Naryan, Advocate, on document Ex.P-3, which is stated to be an acknowledgment. The learned Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the onus to prove the acknowledgment was placed on the petitioner and therefore, he could not seek permission to prove it in rebuttal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that alongwith the application for leave to defend, which was filed by the respondent, an affidavit of the said Sh.Laxmi Narayan had also been filed, wherein Sh.Laxmi Narayan categorically denied appending his signatures on the pronote and the receipt but said nothing about the acknowledgment CR No.188 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: and that it was only when he appeared in evidence as DW-3 that for the first time, he denied his signatures on the alleged acknowledgment. As per learned counsel, it was at that time that he moved an application for examining the hand-writing expert. Learned counsel has argued that in view of the calculated silence of the said Sh.Laxmi Narayan regarding the signatures on the alleged acknowledgment in his affidavit, the petitioner reasonably came to a conclusion that he would not deny his signatures when he appeared as a witness and thus, the judgments relied upon by the learned Trial Court would not apply to this case. Learned counsel for the respondent has however, argued that the onus of proving the issue was on the petitioner-plaintiff and by this device, he cannot fill up the lacuna in his evidence. He has further relied upon (a). Ram Rattan Vs. Anand Pandit and Ors., 2009(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 696, (b). Bhoop Singh Vs. Smt. Krishna and others (C.R. No.6715 of 2009, Dated 17.11.2009) and (c). Sardara Singh Vs. Baljit Singh (C.R. No.5604 of 2007, Dated 10.08.2009). In my opinion, none of these judgments is applicable since the present case turns on its own facts. Sh.Laxmi Narayan denied his signatures on the alleged pro-note and receipt in his affidavit dated 21.04.2003. These judgments would not apply since, as mentioned above, the affidavit was conspicuously silent about the signatures on the alleged acknowledgment. Consequently, it would be in the interest of justice, if the petitioner is allowed one opportunity to have the hand-writing expert take photographs of the disputed signatures and to compare them with the signatures of Sh.Laxmi Narayan. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the learned Trial Court is directed to give one opportunity to enable the expert of the CR No.188 of 2010 (O & M) ::3:: petitioner to take photographs of the disputed signatures and give his opinion after comparing them with the admitted signatures of Lal Chand. March 29, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE