CR No. 2304 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2304 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.5.2009 Lachhu ... Petitioner v. Chuhra and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Davinder Lubana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 2.3.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for getting the sale deed dated 6.6.1987 examined from Handwriting Expert has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner-plaintiff had already been granted enough opportunities to lead his evidence and the date on which the order was passed, it was the second last opportunity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the case itself was adjourned for rest of the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff for 2.6.2009, the petitioner could very well be granted opportunity to produce the handwriting expert to get the sale deed dated 6.6.1987 examined from the handwriting expert. The sale deed is in record with the Registrar. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that once the petitioner had already been afforded enough opportunities to lead his evidence, he cannot be granted more opportunity to lead the evidence in the guise of examination of document by an expert. The case was adjourned only for recording the evidence of Registration Clerk, who on that date had left the court without getting the permission. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The document, which is sought to be examined, is a sale deed, the copy of which is available with the Registrar where the same was registered. On 2.3.2009, when the application filed CR No. 2304 of 2009 [2] by the petitioner-plaintiff for the purpose was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had already been afforded enough opportunities and on that date, it was the second last opportunity, the matter was adjourned to 2.6.2009 for further evidence. Once the court was adjourning the case for leading the remaining evidence by the petitioner-plaintiff, it would have been in the interest of justice, in case he had been granted opportunity to get the disputed sale deed examined through handwriting expert. Accordingly, the impugned order, passed by the learned court below is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to get the document examined from the handwriting expert before the next date of hearing fixed in the court below and produce the report thereof on the next date of hearing. The Registrar, Panchkula is directed to permit the petitioner to get the document examined from the handwriting expert. The petitioner-plaintiff will complete his evidence including the evidence of the handwriting expert on the date already fixed, i.e., 2.6.2009. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.5.2009 mk