C.R No. 5818 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 5818 of 2007 Date of decision : February 11, 2008 Dal Singh ...... Petitioner through Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate v. Kanwarjit & others ...... Respondents through Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** RAJIVE BHALLA,J (Oral) The petitioner impugns an order, dated 31.10.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, dismissing an application for issuance of a direction to defendants No.2 and 3 (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) to give their specimen signatures and handwriting for the purpose of comparison of the specimen signatures and handwriting appearing in documents Exs.PW1/9 and PW3/A. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court, under an erroneous impression that a person cannot be directed to furnish his handwriting/specimen signatures, summarily dismissed the application. The trial Court ignored the provisions of Section 73 of the Evidence Act (for short herein after referred to as “the Act”), which specifically empower C.R No. 5818 of 2007 ::2:: a Court, after recording its satisfaction, to direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for comparison with any word or figure alleged to have been written by such a person. It is further pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court in M/S Guru Nanak Construction Company vs M/S Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills, Jaitu, 1976 Current Law Journal (Civil) 427 has specifically held by making a reference to Section 73 of the Act that a Court is empowered to direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling a Court to compare the words and figures, so written by such person. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that no person can be compelled merely at the asking of a party to submit his thumb impressions, signatures or hand writing. Such an order can only be passed by a Court after recording its satisfaction, in terms of Section 73 of the Act. As the learned trial Court has held that there is no merit in the petitioner's plea, the present revision petition be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The petitioner filed an application, praying for the issuance of a direction to defendants No.2 and 3 to furnish their specimen signatures and handwriting for comparison with the signatures and handwriting appearing on documents, Exs.PW1/9 and PW3/A. Respondents No.1 and 2 opposed the application by asserting that the documents, which are an alleged compromise, executed before a Lok Adalat, apart from being irrelevant, were not signed by them. The trial Court, after considering the respective contentions, dismissed the application on the ground that a party cannot be compelled to furnish specimen signatures and handwriting. Reliance was C.R No. 5818 of 2007 ::3:: placed upon a judgment of this Court in Satpal and another vs Surinder Kumar, 2007(2) HRR 434 (P&H). Section 73 of the Act reads as follows :- “73.Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.- In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write to any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.” Section 73 of the Act empowers a Court to direct any person present to submit written words or figures for the purpose of their comparison with the disputed words or figures. This power must be exercised cautiously, sparingly and that also after the Court records a satisfaction that adopting such a course would advance the interest of justice. In M/S Guru Nanak Construction Company's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the provisions of Section 73 read with Section 45 of the Act, held as follows :- C.R No. 5818 of 2007 ::4:: “4. From the above referred to provisions, it is clear that the opinions of the Expert witnesses become relevant when the identity of handwriting or signatures is in dispute. Section 73 of the Act empowers the Court to direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written by such person. The earlier part of provisions of section 73 provides that in order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. This would show that in order to adjudicate upon the disputed signatures, writing or seal, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court, to have been written or made by that person, can be compared with the disputed ones. It is in this back-ground that the Court has been given power to direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. In our considered opinion, the bare reading of both these C.R No. 5818 of 2007 ::5:: provisions show that the Court has been empowered to direct any person to give specimen signature or handwriting with a view to get the same compared with the disputed ones. This power may be exercised by the Court for its own satisfaction or even on an application being made by any party to the proceedings. If these sections are interpreted to mean that this can only be done by the Court for its own satisfaction that would be perpetuate injustice. In that case persons who may have written or signed valuable documents and on mere denial on their behalf about the said documents having been signed or written, would render the aggrieved party without the remedy of getting the disputed signatures or writing compared and proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the said documents were signed or written by the defaulting party. The provisions have to be interpreted so as to give the fullest meaning with a view to do justice between the parties. When a dispute regarding the signatures or writing on a document is before the Court, it is always the endeavour of the Court to reach at the correct conclusion and without this power having been exercised, whether suo motu or at the instance of the aggrieved party, the decision on these matters, is likely to be made without the assistance of the experts inspite of such expert's evidence having been made relevant under the provisions of section 45 of the C.R No. 5818 of 2007 ::6:: Act.” It is, therefore, apparent that on an application, being made by a party, a Court is empowered to issue directions to any person present in Court to submit written words/figures for the purpose of their comparison and consequent submission of a report, in terms of Section 45 of the Act, after recording its due satisfaction, in terms of Section 73 of the Act. The provisions of Section 73 of the Act, and the opinion, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in M/S Guru Nanak Construction Company's case (supra) were apparently not brought to the notice of the trial Court. In view of what has been noticed herein above, the revision petition is allowed and the order, dated 31.10.2007 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court for consideration afresh, in accordance with law. The learned trial Court shall decide the application within a month. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) February 11, 2008. JUDGE `kk'