Civil Revision No. 4143 of 2007 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4143 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.1.2009 Khem Chand ..... Petitioner vs Smt. Sartaj and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 to 3, and 5 to 6. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 2.5.2007 passed by the learned Court below whereby in an application filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents for issuance of direction to the petitioner to supply his thumb impression/signatures and his father deceased Dewan Chand so that the same could be compared with the signatures/thumb impression on the agreement to sell which was executed by Dewan Chand in favour of the plaintiffs and in which Khem Chand petitioner herein is alleged to be one of the attesting witnesses. As the petitioner denied his signatures on the agreement to sell, an application was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for getting admitted signatures/thumb impression of deceased Dewan Chand and also Khem Chand petitioner, which was allowed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be compelled to supply any document admitting the signatures/thumb impression of deceased Dewan Chand for comparison as he does not have any record of his signatures/thumb impression. In case the plaintiffs/respondents is to compare signatures/thumb impression of deceased Dewan Chand on the agreement to sell, they could get the same from the possession of any authority where any document contains signatures/thumb impression of Dewan Chand. As far as the signatures/thumb impression of petitioner Khem Chand is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner had denied his signatures on the agreement to sell, he cannot be compelled to give his specimen signatures as he has no concerned with the agreement to sell, it is for the plaintiffs/respondents to prove the case set up by them. Civil Revision No. 4143 of 2007 (2) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that on account of denial by the petitioner of his signatures on the agreement to sell as a witness, the application was filed seeking a direction to the petitioner for giving his specimen signatures and also signatures of his deceased father so that hand-writing expert could compare the same with his admitted signatures/thumb impression on the agreement to sell and submit his opinion before the court below. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. As far as the direction given by the learned court below to the petitioner regarding furnishing of signatures/thumb impression of deceased Dewan Chand is concerned, I do not find any justification therefor. If the respondents/ plaintiffs is to compare the signatures/thumb impression of Dewan Chand as appended on the agreement to sell relied upon by them in the suit filed, it is for them to get his admitted signatures/thumb impression from any reliable record where his signatures/thumb impression are available. If the respondents so desire they may take appropriate steps in this regard. The petitioner who is son of deceased Dewan Chand cannot be compelled to produce the same. In so far as the direction to the petitioner for giving his signatures/thumb impression for the purpose of comparison with the signatures/thumb impression on the agreement to sell is concerned, even if the petitioner denied his signatures on the document, no illegality has been committed by the court below in directing the petitioner to furnish his signatures/thumb impression so that the same can be compared with the signatures/thumb impression on the agreement to sell. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned court below on that count cannot be said to be illegal. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 23.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge