C.R No. 6875 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on December 16,2009. Bhupinder Singh -- Petitioner vs. Urmila Devi and others --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Surinder Garg,Advocate,for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.9.2009, whereby an application filed by the defendant/petitioner to produce additional evidence by examining the expert witness to prove that alleged receipt Ex.P-1 is a forged document has been dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.46,000/- on the basis of a receipt Ex.P-1 alleged to have been executed by defendant in lieu of money received. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he wanted to lead additional evidence by examining expert witness to prove his signatures on the alleged receipt Ex.P-1 as according to the defendant,his signatures were taken on a blank paper which was later on converted into a receipt by the plaintiff. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff C.R No. 6875 of 2009 (O&M) 2 has submitted that the defendant had closed his evidence on 25.9.2008 and is now praying for leading additional evidence in rebuttal to rebuttal evidence, although, the evidence which is sought to be led in additional evidence was very much within his knowledge. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that in fact, an agreement to sell was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant who agreed to sell land of his uncle and in lieu thereof, received Rs.35,000/- towards earnest money. Later on, uncle of the defendant/petitioner directly got registered the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and when he asked for the refund of Rs.35,000/-, the defendant/petitioner refused to pay, which led to the filing of the present suit for recovery of principal amount with interest. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The application for leading additional evidence which is sought to be produced in order to produce the expert witness to prove the signature is a highly misconceived because the defendant/petitioner himself admitted his signature, though on a blank paper, therefore, there is no occasion for allowing examination of the document by a Handwriting and Finger Print Expert in order to verify the signatures of the defendant/petitioner on the receipt Ex.P-1. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, though without any order as to costs. December 16,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge