CR No.5126/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5126/2011 Date of decision: 25.08.2011 Jitender Singh and others ....................Petitioners v. Subhash Chaudhary .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Rajesh Lamba,Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendants/petitioners have filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 10.8.2011 (P1) passed by the learned Trial Court. It is apparent that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29.7.2005 in respect of sale of land measuring 51 kanals 14 marlas. It is averred in the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff had paid an earnest money of Rs.6,77,812/- for which the defendants/petitioners had executed a receipt. The defendants/petitioners have filed a written statement asserting that the agreement to sell and receipt are forged documents. It is further submitted that due to their dealing with some CR No.5126/2011 2 other persons some blank papers were signed by them which might have been used by the plaintiff by converting them into alleged agreement to sell and receipt. It is further apparent that the plaintiff/respondent in his affirmative evidence had examined one Handwriting Expert to prove the agreement to sell and the receipt. After the evidence of the plaintiff was closed, the defendants/petitioners had also examined another Handwriting Expert to show that the agreement to sell and the receipt were forged documents. It appears that at the time of evidence of the defendants it was pointed out to the Court that the report submitted by the Handwriting Expert of the plaintiff as well as of defendants did not disclose reasons in respect of comparison of thumb impression. It is then that the learned Court on its own vide impugned order dated 10.8.2011 (P1) had directed both the Experts to submit supplementary report on the respective points. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners submits that the court cannot direct the filling up of the lacuna left by the plaintiff at this stage and hence the order is liable to be set aside. He further contends that in view of the Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, the Court can put questions to the Experts by recalling them but cannot ask for a supplementary report. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find no merit in the pleas raised. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the CR No.5126/2011 3 Court has sought a clarification from both the Experts in respect of certain points not answered in their reports. It is thus evident that the Court has invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to seek such an opinion from the witnesses of both the parties in order to help the Court for effective and proper decision of the case. In such a situation, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to either of the parties. In my view, once the supplementary report is received,both the parties shall have the opportunity to to raise objections against the same which shall be considered by the Court in accordance with law. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is dismissed. 25.08.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge