Dismissed¶¶27

Balbir Singh (Deceased) through His Lr Rohtash v. M/S. Vikram Electric Equipment (Pvt.) Limited and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Jan 2026CR/7620/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; CR-7620-2018 (O&M); Article 227 revision petition; rebuttal handwriting and fingerprint expert; agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006; Mark D1; secondary evidence application dismissed 26.05.2016; Trial Court order dated 06.10.2018 upheld; Balbir Singh (deceased) thr LR v. M/s Vikram Electric Equipment and Ors; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the revision petition was dismissed, leaving intact the Trial Court's order dated 06.10.2018 permitting the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to examine a handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal. ¶¶27

Balbir Singh (Deceased) through His Lr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 06.10.2018 allowing the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to examine a handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence was sustainable, given that the plaintiff's own application to lead secondary evidence qua the same document (Mark D1) had been dismissed on 26.05.2016.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Since the document Mark D1 was produced by the defendant-petitioner himself and the plaintiff-respondent No.1's application for leading secondary evidence to prove that very document had been rejected, the opportunity given by the Trial Court to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal cannot be faulted.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

Finding no merit in the revision petition, the Court dismissed it; pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Alka Sarin, J.), decision dated 29.01.2026 — CR-7620-2018 (O&M): revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Balbir Singh (deceased) thr LR against M/s Vikram Electric Equipment and Ors, challenging the Trial Court's order dated 06.10.2018 which allowed the plaintiff-respondent No.1's application to examine a handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence. The plaintiff's suit for recovery rested on an agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006 which was not appended to the plaint; the plaintiff's application for production of the original or for leading secondary evidence was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2016. The defendant-petitioner himself placed a copy of the agreement on record as Mark D1 and obtained a handwriting expert's report on it. Held: since Mark D1 was produced by the defendant-petitioner and the plaintiff had been denied the opportunity to prove that very document, the Trial Court's permission to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal cannot be faulted. Revision petition dismissed; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

¶1

110

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-7620-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.01.2026

¶4

BALBIR SINGH (DECEASED) THR LR .... Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

M/S VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT AND ORS .... Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶8

Present : Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with

¶10

Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶11

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.10.2018 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for examining of a handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence was allowed.

¶13

Briefly the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffrespondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006. The agreement to sell did not form part of the documents appended with the plaint. A written statement was filed, a copy of the agreement to sell was attached by the defendant-petitioner herein, wherein it was stated that name of the purchaser was not filled in. Issues were framed. Thereafter an application was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for production of the original agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006 or in the

¶14

AMAN JAIN 2026.01.30 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶15

CR-7620-2018 (O&M) -2-

¶16

alternative for granting permission to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to lead secondary evidence. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2016 and the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was not granted opportunity to lead secondary evidence. Thereafter the defendant-petitioner got a handwriting expert for opining on the document Mark D1 which incidentally was the same document qua which the secondary evidence was sought to be led by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. Since the application for secondary evidence filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was dismissed, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had no opportunity to examine a handwriting expert qua Mark D1. The Trial Court vide detailed order dated 06.10.2018 allowed the application permitting the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert to rebut the report of the handwriting and fingerprint expert examined by the defendant-petitioner.

¶17

Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend that the application could not have been allowed as the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was to prove the agreement to sell in the affirmative and having failed to do so, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to lead the evidence in the rebuttal.

¶18

Per contra , learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 would contend that in the present case the agreement to sell did not form part of the plaint. An application was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for direction to the defendant-petitioner herein for production of the original agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006 or in the alternative for granting permission to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to lead

¶19

AMAN JAIN 2026.01.30 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶20

CR-7620-2018 (O&M) -3-

¶21

secondary evidence. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2016 and the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was never afforded an opportunity to lead secondary evidence to prove the said document. Though the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was not permitted to lead secondary evidence qua agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006, however, the very same copy of the agreement to sell was placed on the record by the defendant-petitioner which is marked as Mark D1. It is further the contention of the learned senior counsel that the defendant-petitioner got a handwriting expert for opining on the document Mark D1 hence the necessity for filing the application for examining a handwriting expert in rebuttal.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

In the present case the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery based on the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006. No agreement to sell was appended with the said plaint. However, the agreement was appended by the defendant-petitioner herein along with the written statement in which it was stated that the name of the purchaser was left blank. In the written statement it was the stand taken that defendant No.2 in the suit came with a property dealer and got his signatures on a printed agreement and the name of defendant No.1 was filled in but the name of the purchaser was left blank. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed an application that a direction be issued to the defendant-petitioner to produce the original agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006 or in the alternative it be allowed to lead secondary evidence to prove the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2016 denying the plaintiff-respondent No.1

¶24

AMAN JAIN 2026.01.30 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶25

CR-7620-2018 (O&M) -4-

¶26

the opportunity to lead secondary evidence on the ground that the copy that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was wanting to prove was different. The stand taken by the defendant-petitioner herein was that no such document was available with him. However, strangely though having vehemently contested the application for production of the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006 and in the alternative for permission to lead secondary evidence, the defendantpetitioner herein himself placed on record the document Mark D1 though from a perusal of the impugned order it appears that even the Court is not clear as to how this document came on the record. The Trial Court has noticed that in Ex.D1, which is the copy of the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2006, the space for the name of the vendee was vacant whereas in another copy (Mark D1) the name of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is mentioned as vendee. This is the very document (Mark D1) qua which the defendant-petitioner himself has examined a handwriting expert and sought a report. Since this document was produced by the defendant-petitioner herein and is marked as Mark D1 coupled with the fact that the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for leading secondary evidence to prove this very document was rejected, opportunity given by the Trial Court to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to examine the handwriting expert in the rebuttal cannot be faulted with.

¶27

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶28

29.01.2026 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶29

AMAN JAIN 2026.01.30 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Balbir Singh (Deceased) through His Lr Rohtash v. M/S. Vikram Electric Equipment (Pvt.) Limited and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh (Deceased) through His Lr Rohtash v. M/S. Vikram Electric Equipment (Pvt.) Limited and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munni and Ors. Vs Veer Singh and Ors.

Alahudin Chaudhary Vs Canara Bank

Matadeen and Ors. Vs Singh Ram Deceased through His Lrs and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Vs Maharshi Dayanand University and Ors.

Rajan Kumar Vs Union of India

Rajwant Kaur and Anr. Vs Manjeet Kaur