C.R. No.297 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.297 of 2008 Date of Decision: 1.4.2008 Tek Chand .....Petitioner Vs. Khubi Ram and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision is to an order dated 17.8.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, whereby the learned trial Court, dismissed an application, filed by the petitioner, praying for a direction to respondent no.1 to furnish his signatures/handwriting for comparison with his signatures appearing on the written statement and the deposition on oath in the suit, decree whereof is under challenge in the instant suit. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court wrongly dismissed the application, by holding that as respondent no.1 does not know how to append the signatures, he could not be called upon to provide his signatures. By reference to an affidavit, appended with the revision petition as Annexure P-2, it is submitted that respondent no.1 filed this affidavit deposing therein that though he is illiterate, he can append signatures. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be set aside and respondent no.1 be directed to furnish his signatures for comparison C.R. No.297 of 2008 2 with the signatures appearing on the written statement and deposition on oath filed in the suit, decree whereof is under challenge. Counsel for respondent no.1 is unable to deny the correctness of the averments in affidavit Annexure P-2. It is, therefore, apparent that respondent no.1, though illiterate, can sign. The learned trial Court was misled by respondent no.1 into holding that he did not know how to sign. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 17.8.2007 is set aside. Respondent no.1 is directed to furnish his signatures before the trial Court, on a date to be fixed by the trial Court. The petitioner would, thereafter, be at liberty to get the signatures examined/compared, in accordance with law. Respondent no.1 would necessarily have to be granted an opportunity to rebut any report that may be produced by the petitioner in respect to his signatures. 1.4.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE