CR No. 5631 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 23007-23008-CII of 2009 and CR No. 5631 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.9.2009 Hardayal Singh ....Petitioner. Versus M/s Sahil Trading Co. ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. Nos. 23007-23008-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 5631 of 2009 The defendant-petitioner by way of instant revision petition has challenged the order dated 1.9.2009, whereby the application filed by him seeking permission to allow the expert to inspect the file and take photographs of the congested entries Ex.P41 and Ex.P47 and Marks A to D for their examination/comparison was declined by the trial court. The trial court while declining the aforesaid application had noticed that the defendant while making his statement in the Court as DW1 had admitted the fact that all the entries in the Bahi/Khata of the CR No. 5631 of 2009 -2- plaintiff firm bore his signatures and he had put his signatures after hearing and understanding the contents of the same. The relevant observations recorded by the trial court in para 8 of its order read thus:- “8. In the present case, this court perused the entries Ex.P-41 and Ex.P-47. In entry Ex.P-41 there is an entry which is in the name of Hardayal Singh which is of similar nature as of entry of Richhpal Singh i.e. subsequent entry of Hardayal Singh. Meaning thereby, Ex.P-41 does not go to show this fact that it is of congested nature. In the similar way, entry Ex.P-47 in the name of Hardayal Singh also does not go to show this fact that this is also of congested nature. Further, it is the plaintiff who has to prove his case by leading cogent evidence to the effect that he is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.9,54,950/- from the defendants on the grounds mentioned in the plaint. Moreover, in the present case, when the defendant Hardayal Singh appeared in the witness box as DW-1, then, in his cross- examination, he has specifically deposed that it is correct that he has put his signature in the bahi of plaintiff firm after hearing and understanding and after getting the amount and he has no inimical relations against the partner of the firm and Muneem of the firm. Meaning thereby, own statement of the defendant goes to show this fact that there is no CR No. 5631 of 2009 -3- need to compare the entries by Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as on 7.8.2009 while deposing his statement before the court as DW-1, he has admitted this fact that all the entries in the bahi/khata of the plaintiff firm bears his signatures and he has put his signatures after hearing and understanding the contents of the same. Moreover, no useful purpose is going to be served by granting the permission to the applicant-defendant to examine the entries by Expert, in view of the admission made by the applicant-defendant. Further, this court wants to mention here that as far as parchis mark A to mark D are concerned, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has denied the execution of receipt. Moreover, documents mark A to D are in the shape of chits which does not bear any seal of the plaintiff firm nor sign of any person concerning to the plaintiff firm. When such in the situation , then, the applicant-defendant cannot compel to call the plaintiff for comparison of his hand writing on the kachi parchis which are on the file as mark A to mark D. Further, from the perusal of parchis mark A, mark B and mark D, it is revealed that no date is mentioned on these parchis. Further, this court is of the opinion that by filing the present application, applicant- CR No. 5631 of 2009 -4- defendants want to delay the proceedings of this case which is sheer abuse of process of law.” In view of the above observations of the trial court, no ground to exercise its jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. September 25, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE