C.R. No.1585 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05.08.2009 Lila Ram .....Petitioner versus Charan Dass .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.2.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the petitioner-plaintiff's application for additional evidence and to produce the Hand-writing Expert, has been dismissed. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.64,000/-, on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 20.1.2003, against the respondent-defendant. In his written statement, the respondent-defendant took up a plea that his signatures were obtained on a Special Power of Attorney and that “the plaintiff may have converted the signatures obtained on the special power of attorney, into the alleged pronote and receipt.” In other words, the respondent-defendant, though admitted his signatures on the pronote and receipt, but denied the execution thereof. However, when he appeared as DW-1, he deposed that “on the pronote Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-2, my signatures are not there. On power of attorney, my signatures are not there. C.R. No.1585 of 2007 2 On written statement also, my signatures are not there”. Since the deposition made by the respondent-defendant was apparently in contradiction with the stand taken by him in the written statement, it necessitated the petitioner-plaintiff to move an application for additional evidence so as to produce the Hand-writing Expert in order to prove that the pronote and receipt dated 20.1.2003, bear the defendant's signatures. Notice of motion was issued in this petition and as per the office report, the respondent has been duly served. However, no one appears on his behalf. As the facts would speak for themselves, an occasion to produce the Hand-writing Expert arose only after the deposition made by the respondent-defendant, which is a subsequent event. In these circumstances and in order to do substantial justice, the learned trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to produce the additional evidence comprising the Hand-writing Expert. For the reasons narrated above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.2.2007 is set-aside. The petitioner- plaintiff is permitted to lead additional evidence which shall be confined only to the production of Hand-writing Expert alongwith his report, if any. Dasti. 05-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE