PARVEEN AHUJA Vs. BHAGWAN DASS AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 29th May, 2007 whereby an application of the petitioners under Order 18 Rule 3 read with sections 91, 151 CPC and 73 of Evidence Act was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioners filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction before the Trial Court. The petitioners relied upon various documents allegedly written and sent to Landdo by defendant No. 1 and also filed copies of these documents. Defendant no. 1 was examined under Order 10 CPC by the Court at initial stage and defendant no. 1 denied having written all those documents relied upon by the plaintiff/petitioner. After framing of issues, the plaintiff examined his witnesses. At request of plaintiffs, handwriting of defendant no. 1 was obtained in the Court. The plaintiff however, did not examine any handwriting expert and closed his evidence without reserving his right to lead evidence in rebuttal. Thereafter defendant examined his witnesses. During the course of defendant's examination, the documents were again put to the defendant. Defendant denied having written or sent these documents to Landdo. After closure of defendant's evidence, case was fixed for arguments. Thereafter, plaintiff made this application for adducing further evidence and examination of a handwriting expert, submitting that it was only during cross examination of defendant no. 1, when he denied the execution of documents and signatures, that plaintiff could have examined handwriting expert. There was no occasion for the plaintiff to examine handwriting expert before that. The plaintiff therefore prayed for taking more specimen signatures of defendant no. 1 in Hindi and English and refer the documents to handwriting expert of Government Agency and obtain opinion of the expert.

(3.) THE Trial Court found that the reasons given by the plaintiff were not good reasons. The plaintiff had not reserved any rights to give evidence in rebuttal. Signatures of defendant no. 1 obtained earlier in the court were available to the plaintiff for purpose of comparison. The plaintiff had ample opportunity to send the documents to a handwriting expert to seek opinion but plaintiff did not avail this opportunity. The application was therefore dismissed.