IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4328 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: August 18, 2009. Jarnail Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Kasturi Lal & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. Bedi 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri K.K. Garg, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. ORDER M.M.S. Bedi , J. - (Oral): This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 19.3.1990 by virtue of which the application filed by the defendant for taking photograph of the signatures of the defendant-petitioner on sale deed executed by him in favour of defendant No.2 has been permitted. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this will tantamount to giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence as he has already examined a hand- writing expert who has compared the signatures of the defendant on the disputed agreement of sale and the power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of his Advocate. I have heard counsel for the petitioner who has relied upon Surjit Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2007(1) PLR 552 to contend that as per the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, the plaintiff has a right to lead evidence in rebuttal only on issue in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned order, it is apparent that in a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-respondent/defendant No.1, the petitioner has denied his signatures on the agreement of sale. When his signatures were compared by a hand-writing expert with his admitted signatures appearing on the power of attorney executed by him in favour of his Advocate, he tried to wriggle out of the said evidence against him by making a statement in his cross-examination that the power of attorney dated 23.1.1993 does not bear his signatures. In view of the such circumstances and in the interest of justice, the plaintiff has been rightly given an opportunity to take the photograph of the admitted signatures on sale deed executed by petitioner- defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 – respondent No.2 in order to compare the same with the disputed signatures of the petitioner on agreement of sale. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of this revision petition will not in any manner de-bar the defendant-petitioner no.1 to contest the veracity of the report of the hand-writing expert, if any, produced by cross-examining him or by producing evidence to contradict the same. August 18, 2009. [ M.M.S. Bedi ] kadyan Judge