Civil Revision No. 5706 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5706 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 3,2010 Sunder .. Petitioner v. Ramdiya .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 24.9.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner- plaintiff for getting the signatures and thumb impression of the respondent- defendant examined by an expert, was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,15,000/- including interest on the basis of pronote executed by the respondent-defendant. At the time when the petitioner-plaintiff was leading his evidence, application was filed for getting his signatures and thumb impression so that the same could be got compared by an expert. However, on account of refusal by the respondent-defendant, the learned court below dismissed the application on 22.10.2008 while observing that the consequences of his refusal to give specimen signatures or thumb impression shall be considered in due course. Subsequently, in his cross-examination, the respondent-defendant admitted that written statement dated 26.8.2002, affidavit dated 21.7.2009 and the power of attorney bear his signatures. However, the pronote (Ex. P1) and the receipt (Ex. P2) do not contain his signatures or thumb impression. He further stated that he was ready to give his signatures in court for comparison. It is at this stage that the petitioner-plaintiff filed application for getting the signatures and thumb impression of the respondent-defendant verified through an expert. However, the same was dismissed by the learned court below vide impugned order. Civil Revision No. 5706 of 2009 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons given by the learned court below while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner- plaintiff for getting the signatures/thumb impression of the respondent-defendant examined from an expert cannot stand judicial scrutiny. The principles of res judicata are not applicable while deciding the application. There is change in circumstances that the earlier application was filed and when the present application was filed. Earlier, the respondent-defendant had refused to give his specimen signatures and thumb impression, but now in his cross-examination, he himself volunteered to give the same. Otherwise also, his admitted signatures are on the written statement, affidavit and power of attorney. Reliance was placed upon Satyapal Singh v. Subhash Kumar Adhaulia, 1997(1) Civ. C.C. 352 (Allahabad) and Sarovar Singh v. Budh Singh, 2000(3) RCR (Civil) 457 (P&H). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant submitted that repeated applications for the same relief cannot be permitted. The petitioner in the present case had accepted the order passed by the learned court below earlier rejecting his similar prayer. Now he cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same. The rejection of application presently is not for the reason that the second application is not maintainable, rather, even the stage of the case was also considered by the court, which was complete and was at the stage of rebuttal and arguments. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. In Sarovar Singh's case (supra), while considering the second application filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, this Court opined that in case there is change in circumstances, the issue can be re-agitated. If the facts of the present case are considered, initially the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for getting his signatures and thumb impression of the respondent-defendant examined by an expert was dismissed as at that initial stage, the respondent-defendant refused to give his specimen signatures and thumb impression. However, later on, in his cross-examination, he consented for the same. The examination of a document/signatures/thumb impression by an expert is nothing else but an aid for arriving at correct decision. Even after the report, it is the court, which has to finally decide thereupon. Law of procedure is subservient to justice. It is always to be considered that merely on account of procedure, the parties should not suffer. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves to be permitted an opportunity to get the signatures and thumb impression of the respondent-defendant examined by an expert. The learned court below is directed to grant an opportunity for the purpose. The respondent-defendant will Civil Revision No. 5706 of 2009 [3] also have the opportunity to rebut the evidence to be led by the petitioner-plaintiff, in case he so desires. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.2.2010 mk