C. R. No. 5119 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 5119 of 2009 Date of Decision : January 25, 2010 Smt. Pushpa Rani .... Petitioner Vs. Kamlesh Rani and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondents no.1, 3 and 4. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Pushpa Rani has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 03.08.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Talwandi Sabo, thereby allowing application moved by defendant no.1 for producing petitioner's husband Vijay Kumar (who has already appeared as plaintiff's witness) for giving his specimen signatures for comparison with his alleged signatures on receipts Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2. The plaintiff has filed suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the suit house, alleging that the defendants had illegally occupied the suit house. C. R. No. 5119 of 2009 2 The case of defendant no.1 is that plaintiff's husband Vijay Kumar was owner of the suit property and he owed Rs.14,46,000/- to defendant no.1 and therefore, Vijay Kumar fraudulently transferred the suit property in the name of the plaintiff through fictitious sale deed to avoid payment of due amount to defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 lodged FIR against plaintiff's husband, who was arrested in the case. The police also wanted to arrest the plaintiff, but she obtained anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the plaintiff and her brother - Advocate approached defendant no.1 and gave vacant possession of the suit property to defendant no.1 and agreed to transfer the suit property in the name of defendant no.1 after releasing of plaintiff's husband from jail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner's husband Vijay Kumar is not party to the suit and therefore, he cannot be called to give his specimen signatures. It was also argued that specimen signatures of Vijay Kumar could be obtained while he was in the witness-box and not at a later stage. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh vs. Tarlochan Singh reported as 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 847. It was also argued that there is no issue regarding receipts Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 allegedly executed by Vijay Kumar. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that whole case of the respondents is dependent on the aforesaid receipts, vide which petitioner's husband has borrowed huge amount of Rs.14,46,000/- from defendant no.1 and since Vijay Kumar has denied his signatures on the aforesaid receipts, it is necessary to compare his specimen signatures with his alleged signatures on the receipts with the help of Handwriting Expert. I have considered the rival contentions. C. R. No. 5119 of 2009 3 Facts in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra) were different because the plaintiff, already having closed his evidence in affirmative, wanted the defendant's witnesses to be recalled for obtaining their specimen thumb impressions. The reasoning given by the trial court in that case for dismissing the plaintiff's application for this purpose was not found to be suffering from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case also, the trial court has allowed the application of defendant no.1 and the reasoning given by the trial court in the instant case also does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, Vijay Kumar is none else, but petitioner's husband. Vijay Kumar has also stepped into the witness-box. Whole case of defendant no.1 is dependent on receipts Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2. Since Vijay Kumar has denied his signatures on the receipts, it is necessary to obtain his signatures for comparison. Vijay Kumar has allegedly transferred the suit property to the plaintiff. Since specimen signatures of Vijay Kumar were not obtained when he entered the witness-box, defendant no.1 may be burdened with cost, but application moved by defendant no.1 cannot be dismissed. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is disposed of with the direction that the application moved by defendant no.1 shall stand allowed as ordered by the trial court vide impugned order Annexure P-5, but the same shall be subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as cost precedent by defendant no.1 to plaintiff-petitioner. January 25, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE