CR No.465 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.465 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.08.2010 Sham Sunder ..Petitioner Vs. Sohan Lal ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Vijay Lath & Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision is directed against the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the learned trial court vide which application moved by the petitioner for directing the defendant/respondent to give specimen signatures for comparison with the signatures on the agreement deed dated 9.6.2004, was declined. The application moved by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground, that the defendant cannot be directed to adduce evidence against him at this stage, as the plaintiff/petitioner can get the signatures compared, with the signatures on the power of attorney and the written CR No.465 of 2010 2 statement filed in this court. The impugned order on the face of it is perverse. It is not a case where the defendant has been asked to depose against his interest. Rather the observations made by the learned trial court are derogatory to the interest of the defendant/respondent, as presumption has been drawn that if the signatures are given they are not likely to tally with the signatures on the agreement. This presumption could not be drawn by the learned trial court until and unless there is a positive evidence on record to this effect. Right of the plaintiff/petitioner to get signatures compared from the Handwriting Expert, to prove his case cannot be said to be an attempt to direct the defendant to depose against his interest, as concluded by the learned trial court nor the trial court could have directed the comparison of signatures with signatures on the written statement and power of attorney, as the signatures on the power of attorney as well as written statement were not affixed in the presence of the court. This court in the case of M/s Rajender Kumar Dalip Kumar Jain Vs. Subhash Chander 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 731, has laid down that request of a party to take specimen signatures, for expert opinion of handwriting expert cannot be denied, in view of the provisions of Order 16 Rule 2 read with Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act. This court again in the case of Kirpal Singh & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 669, has laid down that the power of the court to direct the party to give specimen signature does not depend upon the willingness of the person. Even unwilling party can be directed to give CR No.465 of 2010 3 the required specimen signatures for comparison. Evidence sought to be led by the plaintiff/petitioner by taking specimen signatures of defendant could not be said to be irrelevant, to be denied by the learned trial court as in the facts of this case for refusal to give signatures no adverse inference could be drawn against the defendant. It is only in the cases where on account of refusal by the party to give signatures, an adverse inference can be drawn, then only refusal can be accepted, in other cases court can force a party to give specimen signatures. For the reasons stated, this revision petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the learned trial court is set aside. Learned trial court is directed to get the specimen signatures of the defendant for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures on the agreement in dispute. In case the defendant shows his unwillingness to give specimen signatures, in that event the court should draw adverse inference against him. Revision allowed. 09.08.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge