Civil Revision No.6769 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6769 of 2010 Date of decision: August 08, 2011. Kulbir Singh & Anr. ... Petitioners v. Sumer Chand & Ors. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Ashok Khubar, Advocate for respondent No.3. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): The petitioner-plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that they are exclusive owners in possession of the property/plot bearing part of khasra No.329, detail and description of which was given in the head note of the plaint. They had further prayed that release/relinquishment deed dated 30.6.2000 executed by Nathu Ram in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of the property mentioned in Part-A of the heading of the plaint is illegal, null and void and ineffective, inoperative and not binding upon the parties. It is not disputed that plaintiffs and the defendants are the grand-sons of Nathu Ram. Amended written statement was filed by defendants No.1 & 2 Civil Revision No.6769 of 2010 -: 2 :- in which it was stated that no family settlement was arrived at in the year 1995. However, Mahesh Kumar, defendant No.2, while appearing in the court as DW3, tendered his affidavit as Ex.DW1/A. In his affidavit, Mahesh Kumar stated that he has brought the original family settlement dated 14.5.1994 and notarized certified copy of the same is Ex.D1. He also produced original relinquishment deed dated 30.6.2000 along with certified copy Ex.D2. There is no dispute that both the family settlement dated 14.5.1994, certified notarized copy of which was produced as Ex.D1 and relinquishment deed dated 20.6.2000, certified notarized copy Ex.DW2, bears signatures of Nathu Ram. The petitioner-plaintiff at that stage filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC making a prayer that DW1 be directed to produce original relinquishment deed dated 30.6.2000 and agreement/family settlement dated 14.5.1994. He further prayed that plaintiff be permitted to seek opinion of the hand-writing expert for proper adjudication of the case. Vide impugned order dated 5.10.2010, the application has been dismissed on following two grounds, firstly, that the original document sought to be produced came to light in the written statement filed by the defendants. Furthermore, the burden to prove that the relinquishment deed Ex.D2 was illegal, was upon the plaintiff and by not examining hand-writing expert, plaintiff has not discharged the onus and at this stage, he cannot be permitted to examine the hand-writing expert to demolish the case of the defendant. Secondly, the court held that since the case pertains to the year 2002, being the oldest case, the prayer made in the application cannot be entertained as it will further delay the culmination of the proceedings. I have heard Counsel for the parties. Civil Revision No.6769 of 2010 -: 3 :- Case of the parties is based on the validity of documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The court indeed has to return a finding whether these documents contain signatures of Nathu Ram or not. For arriving at this conclusion, the court can take recourse to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (in short the Act) and decide this question taking aid of the hand- writing expert. Section 47 of the Act also states that when the court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. Therefore, if a signature can be proved taking into consideration opinion of the hand-writing expert, at the same time any person can come and state that during his life time, he has seen the executant signing and he is conversant with his signatures and lastly the court can formulate its own opinion under Section 73 of the Act. It is now well settled that the court is entitled to comparison of a disputed and admitted signatures for just conclusion. It is only a rule of prudence that expert opinion can be taken into consideration. It has also been held by the courts that science of handwriting comparison is not a perfect science. Therefore, even if there is an opinion of the expert, the court is bound to take recourse to Sections 47 and 73 of the Act. Taking totality of the circumstances, this Court will not, at this stage, permit the plaintiff to examine the handwriting expert to demolish the case of the defendant or fill lacuna, especially when he has not been diligent enough to discharge its onus at the stage when plaintiff's evidence was on. It is needless to say that the court below has to give a finding regarding validity of the documents and signatures of Nathu Ram thereupon. Civil Revision No.6769 of 2010 -: 4 :- Therefore, the court has to take recourse to Section 47 and 73 of the Act to formulate its opinion as to whether these documents contain signatures of Nathu Ram or not as expert's evidence is not the sole criteria. For arriving at this conclusion, the court shall requisition the original documents. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] August 08, 2011. Judge kadyan