IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP MO No. 200 of 2007 Date of decision July 09, 2008 __________________________________________________________ 1. CMP MO No. 200 of 2007 Chand Rani and another ….Petitioners. Versus Ram Lal ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ CMP MO No. 200 of 2007 For the Petitioners: Shri B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This petition has been preferred by defendant praying that the signatures of the plaintiff be sent for comparison to the hand writing expert. The learned trial Court by its order dated 20.11.2006 rejected the application holding:- “I have heard both the learned counsel (s) for the parties and perused the record, it is clear from the record that the present case was fixed for arguments for 27.12.2002 on which date additional issues were framed. No evidence was led on behalf of plaintiff and the case was fixed for DWs on issues and this application has been filed on 25.07.2003 which is the belated stage of the case. I am of the view that no useful purpose will be 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 served in sending the signatures for comparison when no evidence has been led on additional issues. This application has been filed at the time of belated stage just to linger on the proceedings of the case. Hence, I dismiss this application in the interest of justice. Put up for DWs on additional issues if any for 29.12.2006. Steps be taken within 7 days.” The order passed only considers head notes of the judgments cited by learned counsel for parties. It is trite that even when discretionary powers are exercised by the Court, they should be informed by reasons and rationality and not merely by an expression of opinion. Merely because a request is made at a belated stage, does not mean that it is to be rejected only on that ground. After additional issues had been framed, if the applicant/petitioner wanted the examination of the signatures by Hand Writing Expert, this should have been considered in the contextual matrix. It was for the Court to decide whether there was requirement for the signatures to be examined by expert and whether it was possible for such signatures to be compared only after a detailed examination and not at the threshold without considering the facts in detail. The Court had to address the question of necessity for such examination in the context of the requirement of ending the controversy. Ultimately, if it was found that such comparison is not possible naturally the applicant would have exhausted a ground which he could otherwise take in appeal thus shortening the litigation. In this view of the matter, I do no find that the order is sustainable on the reasons as stated therein. This petition is accordingly accepted. The petitioners shall pay Rs. 5000/- as costs to the respondent on the first date of appearance before trial Court. It is clarified that learned trial Court shall proceed with expedition in the matter. The parties to appear before trial Court on 14th of August, 2008. In case the cost is not 3 paid, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and order under challenge shall revive. July 9, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge