CR No.3036 of 2009 (O&M) - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.3036 of 2009 (O&M) Date Of Decision: 09.09.2009 **** M/s. Popular Engineering Company . . . . Petitioner VS. M/s. Harkrishan Industries & Another . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Naresh Parbhakar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) The petitioner-plaintiff impugns the order dated 10th April, 2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara whereby his application for additional evidence has been dismissed. The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.71,554/- plus interest till the date of realization against the respondent-defendants. The respondents also appears to have filed a cross suit in Civil Court at Ludhiana. In its suit, the petitioner has relied upon a Builty No.15407 dated 8th May, 2003 as well as a delivery challan of the same date, which are allegedly signed by the father of respondent-defendant No.2. The respondents, however, have disputed those signatures and termed them as forged. The petitioner-plaintiff wants to prove those signatures with the admitted signatures of the father of respondent No.2 but its application has been declined by the trial Court. Notice of motion was issued and in pursuance thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. CR No.3036 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the builty and the delivery challan are alleged to have been signed by the father of respondent No.2, I am of the considered view that the petitioner-plaintiff can be permitted to prove those signatures by getting compared these documents with the admitted signatures of father of respondent No.2. This, however, shall not preclude the respondents to produce their own handwriting expert and controvert the petitioner. Similarly, the above permitted exercise shall have no effect on the stand taken by the respondent-defendant No.1 that respondent- defendant No.2 is his sole proprietorship and his father has no concern whatsoever with the firm. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.04.2009 is hereby set aside and the petitioner-plaintiff is permitted to lead additional evidence to prove the builty and the delivery challan dated 08.05.2003 in question subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/- to the respondent-defendants and subject to further condition that the respondent-defendants shall also be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal without prejudice to their other pleas. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 09.09.2009 shonkar