Civil Revision No. 4454 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4454 of 2011 Date of decision:-12.10.2011 Maha Singh @ Mohar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Krishan Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. RITU BAHRI J. Challenge is to the order dated 08.06.2011 vide which an application moved by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Krishan Kumar for direction to the present petitioner Maha Singh @ MoharSingh (DW2) to give specimen of his thumb impression for comparison of the same with the signature on the documents exhibited. Challenge is also to the order dated 08.06.2011 vide which the application for leading rebuttal evidence has been allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Sirsa. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that the defendants has procured impugned allotment of land by way of forgery and fraud. Defendant-Mohar Singh in his cross examination has admitted his thumb impressions on the documents regarding the delivery of possession and his signature in Hindi are there on rapat rojnamcha (Ex.PW- Civil Revision No. 4454 of 2011 -2- 6/A). For comparing the thumb impression and handwriting with the disputed thumb impression and signature, the report of the handwriting and finger print expert was said to be necessary. Defendant No. 5 has admitted his signatures on the original form (US-3) and rapat rozjamcha whereas in his evidence, he has stated that he did not apply for allotment but he can affix his signature and the affidavit DW1/A bears his signature in English . Since there is dispute regarding thumb impression and signature of defendant on document Ex PW-6/C and Ex DW2/D1, the application was allowed and direction was given to defendant No. 5 to appear before the Court so that his specimen signature in Hindi and thumb impression could be taken for the purpose of comparison. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:- “73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person”. Civil Revision No. 4454 of 2011 -3- Vide order dated 08.06.2011, a direction is given to defendant No. 5 to appear before the Court and given his specimen signatures in Hindi and thumb impression for the purpose of comparison. This direction has been given in view of the fact that the defendant has himself admitted that he can put his signature in English. He has also admitted his signature on the original form US-3 and rapat rojnamcha. The above said order dated 08.06.2011 does not suffers from any procedural irregularity. Appellant has challenged the order dated 08.06.2011 whereby application moved by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 for leading rebuttal evidence, has been allowed. Defendant No. 5 during his cross-examination has stated that he was illiterate and had never studied in any school. Plaintiffs/applicants came to know that he had studied upto matric from Government Higher Secondary School, Village Badi Gandhi, District Hanumangarh. The Sarpanch of the village had given in writing that defendant No. 5 was a permanent resident of the said village. From the jamabandi obtained by the plaintiffs/applicants, it has turned out that defendant No. 5 was a big land owner having 125 acres of land and he was holding 80 acres of land at the time of his death. Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is clear that once the plaintiff has closed its evidence in the affirmative, he can reserve the right to lead rebuttal evidence. To meet the ends of justice and to enable the parties to complete evidence in support of the case, application for leading rebuttal evidence has been allowed. No prejudice will be caused to the defendants as they will Civil Revision No. 4454 of 2011 -4- have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses in rebuttal. In the facts of the present case order dated 08.06.2011 for leading rebuttal evidence and order dated 08.06.2011 directing the defendant No. 5 to give his thumb impression suffers from no illegality Accordingly, civil revision is dismissed. 12.10.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE