Dismissed

Harjinder Singh v. Salig Ram and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2011CR/2272/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to appoint a Hand Writing Expert. The court held that since defendants denied execution in their written statement, the plaintiff was responsible to lead proper evidence, making mid-trial appointment unjustified.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order denying the appointment of a Hand Writing Expert.

Harjinder Singh Vs Salig Ram and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Civil Revision No. 2272 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 2272 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 17th, 2011

¶5

Harjinder Singh .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Salig Ram and another

¶8

.... Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶10

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Brigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶14

Harjinder Singh, plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 28.1.2011 (Annexure P3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby his application for appointment of Hand Writing Expert for comparison of disputed signatures of defendants appearing on various documents relied upon by the plaintiff with their specimen signatures, has been dismissed.

¶15

The plaintiff had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.1,03,180/against respondents, Salig Ram and Kapoor Singh. In the said suit, he applied for appointment of Hand Writing Expert for the purpose of comparison of disputed signatures of defendants appearing on various

¶16

¶17

Civil Revision No. 2272 of 2011

¶18

documents relied upon by him with their specimen signatures. It is claimed in the application that when the defendants appeared in the witness box, suggestions were put to them to admit their signatures on the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, they did not admit their signatures on the documents and, therefore, appointment of Hand Writing Expert has become necessary.

¶19

The application has been opposed by the defendants and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 28.1.2011.

¶20

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶21

I have heard Mr. Sandeep Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Brigu Dutt Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the record carefully.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defendants have denied their signatures while they were in the witness box and the plaintiff is required to be given an opportunity to rebut that evidence by examining a Hand Writing Expert, who would compare the disputed signatures and specimen signatures of the defendants and would make a report in this regard.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to dispute the fact that the execution of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff had been denied by the defendants in their written statement. It has been rightly submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that they had claimed in the written statement that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are forged documents. In these circumstances, the written statement

¶24

¶25

Civil Revision No. 2272 of 2011

¶26

had made it amply clear that the defendants did not admit their signatures on the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The proof of execution of those documents in that event was the responsibility of the plaintiff and he was to lead evidence to prove the execution of those documents in his affirmative evidence. The plaintiff was not taken by surprise by the defendants denying their signatures on those documents. These circumstances clearly reveal that the plaintiff is only trying to fill up the lacuna left in his evidence and he cannot be allowed to do so.

¶27

Learned trial court is, therefore, not found to have committed any illegality in dismissing the application, justifying interference by this court at this stage. The revision petition is, therefore, found to have no merit and is dismissed.

¶28

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶29

November 17th, 2011 som

Harjinder Singh v. Salig Ram and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjinder Singh v. Salig Ram and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The M.C Amritsar Vs Po, etc.

Jaspreet Singh Vs Commissioner Patiala Division and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhpal Singh and Anr. Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Madan Lal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.