IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6218 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 18.10.2011 Gurbachan Kaur .... Petitioner Versus Satpal Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.09.2011 whereby an application moved by the plaintiff for leading additional evidence has been declined. A suit for declaration has been filed on 30.3.2005 to the effect that plaintiff is the joint owner in possession of the suit land and the sale deed dated 17.3.2003 alleged to be executed by Mohinder Singh - defendant No. 7 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 is illegal, null and void. The power of attorney dated 20.11.1990 alleged to be executed by the plaintiff has been prepared by way of impersonation in connivance with its witnesses. The plaintiff is challenging the genuineness of the power of attorney and has filed an application to examine the handwriting expert on 8.11.2008. This application was allowed on 10.9.2009 by C.R. No. 6218 of 2011(O&M) 2 the trial Court. The plaintiff did not examine the handwriting expert and closed the evidence on 14.6.2011. The second application dated 16.9.2011 has been declined on the ground that it was an attempt to fulfill lacuna at the fag end of the trial. The petitioner can not claim the benefit of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy, 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 875 as the first application for examining the handwriting expert had been allowed on 10.9.2009. No specific ground has been made out to move this second application once the plaintiff had closed his evidence on 14.6.2011. Petition is dismissed. (RITU BAHRI) 18.10.2011 JUDGE reena