CIVIL REVISION NO. 2551 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 02, 2008 Meera Khushlani and another .....petitionerss VERSUS Brij Pal Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. K. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitionerss. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The application filed by the petitioners for summoning the original record and for issuance of a direction to hand-writing expert to again compare the thumb impression and signatures and for allowing the applicants to take photographs and negatives by calling the original record from HRC Office for cross-examination/rebuttal ) stands declined. The necessity to file this application arose due to the fact that Naresh Kumar, Hand-writing Expert, has taken specimen thumb impression but no original record of the sale deed dated 28.10.1986 was summoned before the Trial Court, which was used for the CIVIL REVISION NO. 2551 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: purpose of comparison of the disputed signatures. Plea raised is that signatures were to be compared on the sale deed with the service certificate but the hand-writing expert had taken the photographs directly from the office of Registrar from the sale deed referred to above. This is statedly without the permission of the Court. The petitioners have objected to this procedure and the action in taking the photographs directly from the record of the Registrar's office and have, thus, made an application for summoning the record and for grant of the permission as referred to above. The respondents, however, denied the line of reasoning advanced by the petitioners. It is stated that there is no infirmity in the method adopted for taking the photographs of the signatures, which was taken after due permission from the office of Registrar and original record had been summoned for the purpose of cross- examination of the hand-writing and finger expert. It has further been pleaded that there is no requirement under law to obtain photographs of the summoned record in the Court or for obtaining the photographs for the purpose of comparison only in the presence of counsel for the parties. While rejecting the prayer of the petitioners, the Court has observed that the service record was not produced by the respondent-plaintiffs for the purpose of comparison but only to show that they were on duty at the time of execution of the sale deed. It is further observed that there is no requirement under law that signatures, which are used as specimen signatures, can be taken only after permission from the Court and notice to the petitioners. CIVIL REVISION NO. 2551 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: This may be necessary if any photograph of the record is to be taken, which is in the custody of the Court. During the course of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any provision of law, whereby such a course is required to be adopted in respect of document which is not on a Court record. The Trial Court has rightly observed that the petitioner-applicants are free to lead their evidence and examine his hand-writing expert and to use any specimen signatures for this purpose. The application moved, as such, was found frivolous and was dismissed with costs. Counsel for the petitioners was unable to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned order, which may call for any interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. May 02 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE