CR No.7107 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7107 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.4.2010 Neelam Rani and another .... Petitioners. Versus Ashok Kumar and another .....Respondents. CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the petitioners. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.8.2009 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana by which he has allowed an application filed by the plaintiff for inspecting and taking of the photographs by the handwriting and finger print expert. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of the plaintiff, Dr.Inderjeet Singh hand writing finger print expert had already taken the signatures and photographs of Hari Ram and had prepared a report dated 15.2.2009 opining that “On the basis of the above observations, I am of the opinion that disputed signatures marked as Q1 to Q5 are a product of free hand forgery and do not tally with the standard signatures of `Hari Ram' marked as S1 to S9 i.e. they have been written by different person.” Dr.Inderjeet Singh, handwriting and finger print expert has already been examined as PW8 on 5.3.2009 and on that day, the following order was passed by the Court below: CR No.7107 of 2009 (O&M) -2- “PW8 Dr.Inderjit Singh has tendered his affidavit and report into evidence vide separate statement. Copies supplied to other side. For cross-examination to come upon 25.3.2009.” The said witness of the plaintiff/respondent, did not present himself for the purpose of cross examination. Moreover, the said witness of the plaintiff has opined against the interest of the plaintiff, therefore, another application was filed by the plaintiff for the purpose of inspection of the file and taking photographs of hand writing and finger print expert to compare the signatures of Hari Ram (defendant No.3) although the signatures of said Hari Ram had already been taken from the admitted documents and have been compared by Dr.Inderjeet Sharma, who has submitted his report dated 15.2.2009 to the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners, has thus, argued that the learned Court below has erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the plaintiff to prepare another report through the process of hand writing and finger print expert contrary to the report, which has already been brought on record by the plaintiff himself. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 2.12.2009 and in the meantime, operation of the impugned order was ordered to be stayed and respondents No.1 and 2 had been served but no one had put in appearance on their behalf, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte and the case was fixed for arguments for today. No one on behalf of the respondents has turned up for the purpose of contesting the revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in detail and have found that impugned order suffers from material irregularity and illegality as the process of the Court cannot be abused in this manner to fill upon the lacuna in the case of the plaintiff. Once the hand writing and finger CR No.7107 of 2009 (O&M) -3- print expert has been appointed on the request of the plaintiff, who had taken the standard signatures of the person, whose signatures are in dispute and had observed against the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot be allowed an opportunity to examine another hand writing expert for the purpose of filling up the lacuna which has been caused by the earlier finger print expert. The impugned order is thus, patently illegal and warrants interference by this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside with Rs.5000/- as costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 22.4.2010 JUDGE Meenu