C.R. No.1994 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1994 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.8.2010 Major Singh ……Petitioner VERSUS M/s Jagan Nath and another ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Arvind Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) C.R. No.1994 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 5.2.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sunam, whereby the application moved by the defendant/petitioner seeking permission to get his specimen signature examined with the signa- ture on the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs/respon- dents was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiffs had filed suit for recovery against the defendant/petitioner. When case was listed for evidence of the plaintiffs in rebuttal, an application was moved by the defendant/petitioner with the allegation that the basis of suit filed by the plaintiffs (documentary evidence) does not bear signature of the defendant/petitioner. It was further alleged in the ap- plication that his earlier Counsel did not advise him to get the signa- ture compared through handwriting expert. It is also contended that now present Counsel has advised him to get the signature compared on the documentary evidence through handwriting expert. 3. Learned trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that every facts were in the knowledge of the defendant/peti- tioner, hence, after closing of the evidence of the defendant/peti- tioner permission to lead additional evidence can not be granted. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record carefully, this Court is of the opinion that when in a suit for recovery of amount defendant does not admit the basis of suit and specifically challenges documentary evidence filed by the C.R. No.1994 of 2010 (O&M) -3- plaintiff (basis of the suit) saying it does not contain defendant’s sig- nature then the safest course would be to get the signature examined through handwriting expert. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant states that report of handwriting expert is ready and it shall be filed before the learned trial Court on the date fixed by this Court and handwriting ex- pert shall be produced before the Court for the cross-examination on such date as fixed by this Court. 6. Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 05.02.2010 is quashed. Petitioner/defendant is permitted to file handwriting expert'- s report in the learned trial Court on or before 20.8.2010 with an ad- vance copy to learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. Defen- dant/petitioner shall produce his handwriting expert before the learned trial Court for examination on 30.8.2010. If defendant/peti- tioner produces his handwriting expert on 30.8.2010, the same shall be examined/cross-examined/re-examined, as the case may be, by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that no further adjournments shall be granted to the defendant/petitioner for this purpose. Liberty shall also be given to the respondents/plaintiffs to file their handwriting expert’s report in re- buttal, if so advised. Petitioner/defendant shall also pay Rs.10,000/- to the respondents/plaintiffs as costs on or before 30.8.2010. C.R. No.1994 of 2010 (O&M) -4- ( ALOK SINGH ) 13th August, 2010 JUDGE ashish