The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that allowed a plaintiff to compare disputed signatures with standard signatures as additional evidence. The court held no ground was made out for interference.
Order under challenge dismissed; no grounds for interference found.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision Petition No. 6132 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision Petition No. 6132 of 2011 Date of decision:- 04.11.2011
Dr. Parveen Gupta
...Petitioner
Versus
Khazan Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
RITU BAHRI J.
Challenge is to the order dated 07.9.2011 whreby application moved by the plaintiff seeking permission to get comparison of disputes signatures of the defendant appearing on Ex.P1 with the standard signatures by way of rebuttal evidence. The plaintiff has closed his evidence on 27.9.2009. Thereafter, the defendant led his evidence. In his cross-examination he denied his signatures on the agreement Ex.P1.
The plaintiff had filed the instant suit seeking rendition of account for settlement of account for construction of building situated at Village Dhandi Khurd Road, Gurharsahai and agreement was reduced into writing between the parties with regard to the rates regarding contract of construction. This agreement was duly signed by the parties in the presence of witness Sham Lal. However, this agreemtn had denied by defendant in his written statement. The defendant had denied his signatures on the agreement during his crossexamination. The Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar (West) has allowed the application vide order dated 7.9.2011 subject to payment of
Civil Revision Petition No. 6132 of 2011
-2-
Rs.1500/- as costs and has granted two opportunities to the plaintiff to conclude his additional evidence. The validity of agreement is the main issue in the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking rendition of accounts.
No ground is made out to interfere in the said order.
Dismissed .
04.11.2011 Vijay Asija
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revisional order allowing comparison of disputed signatures as rebuttal evidence warrants interference.
Dr. Parveen Gupta
Khazan Singh
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
