C.R. No. 6776 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6776 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.10.2010 Bakhshish Singh .... Petitioner Versus Kanwaljit Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 24.9.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Gurdaspur whereby the application moved by the plaintiff seeking permission to examine the handwriting and finger print expert was dismissed. In nutshell plaintiff has filed a suit for possession and specific performance of contract on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 29.11.2003. Defendants have filed written statement stating therein that agreement to sell dated 29.11.2003 was never executed by the defendants and same is fabricated one. It has further been stated by the defendants in the written statement that they have never executed agreement to sell dated 29.11.2003 nor agreement dated 29.11.2003 contains their signatures. Issues were framed. The Issue No. 1 is - As to whether plaintiff is entitled to C.R. No. 6776 of 2010 2 specific performance of the contract dated 29.11.2003? Plaintiff was duty bound to prove the agreement to sell dated 29.11.2003 to get the desired relief. Plaintiff has led his evidence and did not opt to file report of handwriting and finger print expert nor produced finger print and handwriting expert in evidence. Plaintiff has closed his evidence. Thereafter, defendants have produced evidences/ witnesses specifically denying on oath, their signatures on the agreement to sell in question. After the closing of the defendants evidence, plaintiff has moved this application seeking permission to produce handwriting and finger print expert which was declined by the trial Court having observed that plaintiff has failed to discharge his burden initially and after closing of the evidence of the defendants, plaintiff should not be permitted to examine the finger print and handwriting expert. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State (Delhi Administration) vs. Pali Ram, reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 14(1). I have carefully perused the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Pali Ram's case (supra). In the matter of Pali Ram's case (supra) the accused was charged for an offence of forgery and cheating and in that eventuality Supreme Court has held that an opportunity must be granted to the accused to get his signature compared by handwriting expert. In the present case, plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of the contract on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 29.11.2003. Defendants have denied execution of the agreement to sell and further have C.R. No. 6776 of 2010 3 denied their signature on the agreement to sell and have stated in their written statement that alleged agreement to sell is fabricated one. In the facts and circumstances of the case, burden was on the plaintiff to prove Issue No. 1 to get the relief of specific performance. Of course, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, plaintiff can be permitted to examine handwriting and finger print expert in rebuttal, however, if plaintiff has failed to discharge his initial burden to prove agreement to sell, the basis of the suit, ordinarily he should not be permitted to fill up the lacuna after the closer of the evidence of the defendants. Impugned order does not require any interference. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 14.10.2010 JUDGE reena