Civil Revision No.5845 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5845 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.09.2010 Thana Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Harjinder Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. K.R. Dhawan, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioners, by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 24.8.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/respondent for taking photograph by the finger print expert of standard as well as the disputed signature of Thana Singh defendant and Banta Singh marginal witness of the agreement in dispute, stands allowed. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 6.6.2001 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, directing defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent in respect of the land measuring 16 kanals at village Basti Varpal, Tehsil Zira @ `1,80,000/- (Rupees one lac and eighty thousand only) per acre, after adjusting `3,50,000/- (Rupees three lac and fifty thousand only) paid as earnest money. Civil Revision No.5845 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The agreement was disputed by the defendant/petitioners. The learned trial Court framed an issue as to whether the parties had entered into an agreement on 6.6.2001. The onus to prove the agreement was on the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff did not examine Banta Singh, one of the marginal witness being won over and concluded the evidence. The petitioners in defence produced Banta Singh, who denied his signatures on the agreement, thus, prima facie proving the allegation that Banta Singh was won over by the defendant/petitioners. The application was thereafter moved by the plaintiff/respondent to get the signatures of the defendant as well as Banta Singh marginal witness by handwriting expert. The learned trial Court has allowed the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the impugned order primarily on the ground, that the onus of proving the agreement was on the plaintiff/respondent, therefore, he was to prove the agreement in affirmative and not in rebuttal evidence. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that there was no reason for comparing the signatures of Thana Singh defendant as he had not disputed his signatures on the agreement. There is force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Once the signatures are not disputed, there is no reason with the plaintiff/respondent to get the signatures of Thana Singh compared from the handwriting expert. The impugned part of the judgment, vide which the application to prove the signatures of Thana Singh defendant has been Civil Revision No.5845 of 2010 (O&M) -3- allowed, is quashed. However, the application qua taking photograph of the standard signatures as well as disputed signatures of Banta Singh was rightly allowed. The learned trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pawan Kumar Vs. Surinder Pal and another, 2009(3) Law Herald 2098, as the plaintiff/respondent could not be said to be aware of the fact that the defendants will produce Banta Singh in defence and that he would deny his signatures. The challenge to impugned part of order vide which permission has been granted to prove signatures of Banta Singh by examining handwriting expert is rejected. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 13, 2010 R.S.