CIVIL REVISION NO.2743 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Krishan Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Mandir Nain Sukh Dass Charitable Trust Society, Amritsar 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. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 151 CPC for direction to obtain expert opinion by comparing the hand- writing of Pandit Sukh Ram Dass appearing on the disputed documents with the admitted hand-writing. This prayer of the petitioner is declined against which he has come in the present revision petition. It is stated that disputed documents Exhibits P8, P12, P16, P18, P19 and P20 were written in hand by Pandit Sukh Ram CIVIL REVISION NO.2743 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: Dass who is no more. The defendant has denied the hand-writing of Pandit Sukh Ram Dass on these documents and, thus, there is a dispute whether documents in dispute are actually in the hand-writing of Pandit Sukh Ram Dass or not. It is urged that to decide this issue, it is necessary to obtain an opinion of hand-writing expert by comparing the hand-writing appearing on the documents with some admitted hand-writing of Pandit Sukh Ram Dass. Respondent-plaintiffs has contested the plea raised in the application. It is stated that the documents written in the hand-writing of Pandit Ram Sukh Dass have already been exhibited and, thus, the petitioner would not have any right to challenge the validity of these documents. Finding that there are only signatures of Pandit Sukh Ram Dass on rent deed Exhibit DA at two places, it would not be possible to get the hand-writing compared in the absence of standard hand-writing of Pandit Sukh Ram Dass. The Court found that in the absence of hand-writing of Pandit Sukh Ram Dass on exhibit DA, the comparison of the hand-writing on Ex. P8 to Ex.P20 is not possible. The reasoning given by the Court to dismiss the application that the signatures alone can not be enough to get the hand-writing of Pandit Sukh Ram Dass compared on exhibits P8 to P20, apparently does not suffer from any infirmity which may call for any interference. For proving hand-writing on the disputed documents, the existence of admitted hand-writing is essential. It is also noticed that the counsel for the petitioner has cross-examined PW2 at length in regard to the hand-writing on exhibit P9, P-10 and CIVIL REVISION NO.2743 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: P-12. PW2 has deposed that hand-writing of Pandit Sukh Ram Dass appears on one leaf of Ex.PW2/A but not on the remaining 15 leaves. This also can not be used as a standard hand-writing. It is viewed that on account of the deposition coming on record, there would not be much need left for getting the hand-writing of the Pandit Sukh Ram Dass compared. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity or material irregularity, which may call for any interference in the impugned order. Dismissed. February 26 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE