IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.388 of 2009 Date of decision : July 16, 2010 Nand Lal …Petitioner. Versus Tarsem Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Aveenash Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) By means of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, order dated 18th May, 2009 of the trial Court, by which two applications of the plaintiff- petitioner, one for getting the signature of respondent No.1, on the agreement to sell, compared with his standard signatures and the other for additional evidence, have been rejected. 2. Petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell certain land, described in the plaint, which was allegedly executed by respondent No.1 on 4th April, 1998. Suit has been contested by the respondents, including respondent No.1. He has denied his signature on agreement to sell dated 4th April, 1998. His plea is that he never entered into any agreement with the plaintiff-petitioner for sale of the suit land. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Plaintiff-petitioner filed an application, requesting the Court to get the purported signature of respondent No.1, on the agreement, in question, compared with some other documents, also proved on record, on which there are admitted signatures of the said respondent. He also moved another application, seeking the leave of the Court to place on record some other documents, which prove that respondent No.1 was in need of money to repay certain loan and that soon after the execution of the agreement to sell, under which respondent received a considerable amount of money, that loan had been discharged. 4. Both the applications were opposed by the respondents. Trial Court has dismissed the applications. Reasons recorded, for dismissing the application for comparison of signatures, are that it is not the duty of the Court to help a party in collecting evidence in its favour. Second application stands dismissed, on the ground that the petitioner-plaintiff was supposed to be vigilant, at the time of leading evidence, in the affirmative, or drafting his plaint. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. In case petitioner’s application for comparison of signature on the document, in question, with the admitted signatures of the respondent is allowed, that would not mean collection of evidence on behalf of a party. It cannot be presupposed that the Expert would be giving his opinion in …3… favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Expert is supposed to give his independent opinion, based upon his knowledge and expertise. He is supposed to be an impartial and disinterested person. 7. As regards the second application, it has been admitted that the plaintiff is yet to adduce his evidence, in rebuttal. If that is so, he can prove the documents, which he wanted to be placed on record, while leading rebuttal evidence. However, in view of the fact that through these documents, a new fact is sought to be proved, an opportunity shall be afforded to the respondents-defendants to rebut the correctness and genuineness of the documents. 8. In view of the abovestated position, petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Application of the plaintiff-petitioner for comparison of signature on the document, in question, with the admitted signatures of respondent No.1, which are also stated to be available on record, is allowed. Trial Court shall send the documents, containing the questioned signature and the admitted signatures of respondent No.1, to Handwriting Expert, on payment/depositing of Expert’s fee by the plaintiff-petitioner. 9. Petition stands disposed of with aforesaid directions and observations. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. …4… Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 23rd August, 2010. Record of the trial Court be returned immediately. July 16, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J