Pawan Kumar and Another Vs Subash Chander and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pawan Kumar and Another Vs Subash Chander and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.07.2025 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, allowing the plaintiff/respondent's application to examine a handwriting expert, suffers from material illegality calling for interference by the High Court in revision.

Court's answer

Since the earlier Civil Court order granting the plaintiff liberty to examine any other handwriting expert except Sh. Varun Gagneja was not challenged, and since the criminal case and the civil suit are different proceedings, the learned Civil Judge committed no material illegality in allowing the respondent's application; the revision petition merits no interference.

Key takeaways

The observations made in the judgment are purely confined to the present controversy and deliberations and are not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Virinder Aggarwal, J.) [06.08.2025] dismisses civil revision CR-5258-2025 filed by Pawan Kumar and another against the order dated 19.07.2025 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, whereby the plaintiff/respondent's application to examine a handwriting expert was allowed. Held: an earlier order of the Civil Court had already granted the plaintiff liberty to examine any handwriting expert except Sh. Varun Gagneja, and that order was not challenged or assailed in the revision; the criminal proceedings and the civil suit are different proceedings; accordingly the Civil Judge committed no material illegality warranting interference. The revisionist had contended that in the criminal proceedings the Director, Forensic Laboratory reported that no definite opinion on common authorship of the questioned signatures could be given for want of more suitable and sufficient admitted signatures of Ram Chand in Hindi near the relevant period, and that the plaintiff now sought a favourable report from a private handwriting expert. All observations were expressly confined to the present controversy and were not to be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case.

CR-5258-2025

-:1:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

( 119 )

CR-5258-2025 Date of Decision:- 06.08.2025

PAWAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER

… Petitioners

Versus

SUBASH CHANDER AND OTHERS

... Respondents

-.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present:Ms. Riffi Birla, Advocate for the petitioners.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J . (Oral)

The revisionist has filed this revision petition against the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, vide which an application moved by the plaintiff/respondent for examining ‘handwriting expert’ has been allowed.

The revisionist is alleging that in criminal proceedings, the disputed documents were got examined from the Director Forensic Laboratory and the Director submitted report that no definite opinion regarding common authorship or otherwise of the questioned signatures can be submitted for want of more suitable and sufficient admitted signatures of Ram Chand in Hindi, already existing on some documents, near about the period of questioned signatures. The learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the plaintiff intentionally did not supply the signatures

GAURAV SOROT 2025.08.06 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-5258-2025

-:2:-

so that a report unfavourable to him may not come and now he wants to examine a private handwriting expert and wants to seek a favourable report as plaintiff would be his pay-master. 3. Keeping in view the impugned order, it is clear that earlier the Civil Court has granted liberty to plaintiff to examine any other handwriting expert except Sh. Varun Gagneja and that order of learned Civil Court has not been challenged or assailed in revision petition and the proceedings in criminal case and civil suit are different proceedings. As liberty has been granted to the plaintiff to examine any other handwriting expert and the plaintiff had moved an application. Accordingly the learned Civil Judge has not committed any material illegality calling for any interference by this Court by allowing application of respondent, as such, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

However, observations made herein above may not to be construed as opinion on the merits of the case. Same are purely confined to the present controversy and deliberations.

	(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
06.08.2025	JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
	Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
	Whether reportable? Yes / No

GAURAV SOROT 2025.08.06 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document