IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.4303 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 11, 2008 Harnek Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Surjeet Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.61,600/- i.e. Rs.40,000/- as principal and Rs.21,600/- as interest @ 1.5% per month on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 28.7.2000. This pronote and receipt were executed by Nand Singh son of Hari Singh in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Nand Singh is no more. The respondents have inherited the property of Nand Singh being his legal heirs and as such, are liable to pay the debt incurred by Nand Singh. The petitioner and the respondents are contesting the suit. On completion of pleadings, the trial Court framed the issues and fixed the case for evidence. The petitioner examined various witnesses, including a witness to the pronote and the receipt dated 28.7.2000. He has himself examined as PW2, Civil Revision No.4303 of 2007 :{ 2 }: deposing that Nand Singh had executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the petitioner while borrowing a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Respondents in their turn examined Dr.Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, Patiala as DW2 who gave his opinion in regard to the signatures on the pronote (Ex.D2). The petitioner was given a chance to lead evidence in rebuttal but closed his evidence. Subsequently, he filed an application on 15.11.2006, seeking leave to adduce additional evidence to examine handwriting expert and one Jugraj Singh, Lambardar. Request for examining expert is made for comparing the signatures of deceased Nand Singh appearing on the pronote with his admitted signatures appearing on the registered mortgage deed dated 15.1.1998. This, according to the petitioner, is necessary for just and proper decision of the case. This application petitioner has been dismissed and the said order is impugned in the present revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Phool Chand Jain and others Vs. Smt.Jotri Devi & ors. 2002 (1) Civil Court Cases 71, to submit that the parties can not be denied the right to examine any witness on the ground that it failed to adduce the said evidence while leading affirmative evidence or when it had right to adduce evidence in rebuttal and it did not do so. It is submitted on the basis of this judgment that evidence to determine real controversy in suit must be allowed to be produced and that the principles of procedural law are hand maid to justice. Accordingly, the counsel submits that merely because the petitioner had closed Civil Revision No.4303 of 2007 :{ 3 }: his evidence in rebuttal inadvertently, can not dis-entitle him now to lead evidence, which is proper for just adjudication of the case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Satnam Singh Vs. Devinder Kaur, 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 639. It is observed in this case that the provisions relating to leading of additional evidence has been deleted and it is to discourage leading of additional evidence. The whole controversy in this case relates to the signatures of Nand Singh deceased on the pronote. The petitioner was bound to know that in order to succeed he was required to establish that the pronote had been duly signed by the deceased Nand Singh. It was incumbent upon him to prove the signatures. In fact, he had done so by not only examining the petitioner himself who may be a witness to the signature on the pronote but also by producing an attesting witness to the pronote. The defendant- respondents have led evidence to bring on record the opinion of an expert in regard to the signatures of Nand Singh appearing on the disputed document. It is for the Court to see what value is to be attached to the opinion evidence vis-a-vis the direct evidence as referred to above. The opinion of the expert is not the only mode to prove signature on a document or the hand-writing. Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act provide another mode of proving the writing and signature on a document. As per this Section, when the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, opinion of any person acquainted with hand-writing of the Civil Revision No.4303 of 2007 :{ 4 }: person by which it is supposed to be written or signed is a relevant fact. A person is said to be acquainted with the hand-writing of another when he has seen that person write or when he has received documents written by him etc. Thus, examining an expert in terms of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is not the only mode of proving hand-writing or signature on the document. Rather, evidence of a hand-writing expert unlike that of finger print expert is generally of a frail character and and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed. (See Bhagwan Kaur Vs. Shri Maharaj Krishan Sharma and others, AIR 1973 SC 1346). It is otherwise not necessary to examine hand-writing expert in every case of disputed writing and no adverse inference can be drawn for not obtaining expert's opinion. Reference can be made to Sri Chand Khetwani Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 450 in this regard. Accordingly, it can not said that this evidence in that sense would be that essential for just decision of the case. The petitioner otherwise had opportunity to rebut the evidence while he was given chance for doing so but still chose to close his evidence in rebuttal. A fact can not be lost sight that Order 18 Rule 17A CPC has been deleted, which is with a purpose as already noticed. Though inherent powers still may be available to make an order permitting additional evidence but this can not be allowed in routine which would defeat the purpose behind deletion of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A. As observed in Satnam Singh's case (supra), such exercise of inherent jurisdiction is to be based on principle of equity and justice. It is further observed that a Court, in Civil Revision No.4303 of 2007 :{ 5 }: exercise of inherent jurisdiction, can not act in prejudice to one party. While so observing, the case of Phool Chand Jain (supra) was duly considered by this Court in Satnam Singh's case (supra). I do not consider this to be appropriate case where the Court was required to exercise inherent jurisdiction to direct recording of additional evidence. I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in the impugned order. Revision dismissed. January 11, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE