Civil Revision No. 1043 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1043 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 18 , 2010 Sudarshan Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus Smt. Narbada Devi and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against the order of the learned trial Court declining permission to the petitioner to summon the concerned clerk of the office of Sub Registrar, Rohtak along with the copy of the power of attorney which bears those signatures of the petitioner which have been admitted by the respondent-plaintiff to be true. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance alleging that the petitioner has refused to honour an agreement to sell executed between the parties. In his written statement the petitioner denied executing the said agreement to sell. By way of proving that the signatures were indeed those of the petitioner, the respondent-plaintiff got summoned the record of an earlier admitted power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of his son, Civil Revision No. 1043 of 2010 2 his document expert then compared the disputed signatures with those signatures and gave his report. When the turn of the petitioner came for evidence he also moved an application to summon the same witness with the same record so that his expert could also examine the disputed signatures vis-a-vis the same admitted signatures. The learned Court, however, did not permit the expert of the petitioner to take photographs but permitted him to move an application for taking the said photographs in the office of the Sub Registrar. However, that application was rejected by the Registrar and it was in those circumstances that the petitioner again moved the application for summoning the record to enable his expert to also examine the disputed signatures vis-a-vis the admitted signatures. The learned trial Court having rejected the application the petitioner is before this Court. The learned trial court has been primarily influenced by the fact that this Court in an earlier Civil Revision No. 6728 of 2009 filed by the petitioner had, by an order dated 18.11.2009, granted only one effective opportunity to the petitioner and that opportunity having been availed the instant application deserved to be dismissed. At this stage it would be appropriate to briefly reproduce the concluding portion of the earlier order of this Court:- “As the defendant-petitioner has already moved an application before Sub Registrar, Rohtak for allowing his expert to take photograph of the signature on the power of attorney and the said application has not been decided so far and necessary permission is awaited from the Deputy Commissioner, directions are hereby issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and Sub Registrar, Rohtak to decide the said application within two weeks from the receipt of a certified Civil Revision No. 1043 of 2010 3 copy of this order.” A perusal of the above clearly reveals that this Court had recognised that the prayer of the petitioner was legitimate. Now the position is that even though no fault can be attached to the petitioner for not being able to lead his essential evidence, the same has been shut out. In the circumstances this petition is allowed. The learned trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to summon the record of the earlier power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of his son and thereafter permit the expert of the petitioner to make examination thereof (and to take necessary photographs). (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 18 , 2010 sunita