AVTAR SINGH Vs. MOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AVTAR Singh defendant no. 3, who is also one of the legal representatives of his father Lachhman Singh defendant no. 1 since deceased, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 30.4.2012 Annexure P/3 passed by learned trial court thereby dismissing application dated 12.2.2012 Annexure R1 filed by defendant no. 1 through legal representatives. Respondent no. 1 -plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of money against petitioner, his father Lachhman Singh and uncle Khushwinder Singh proforma respondent no. 2. Plaintiff examined his Accountant Bhajan Lal as PW 1. In cross -examination, Bhajan Lal was confronted with some documents said to be account statements issued by Bhajan Lal to Lachhman Singh defendant no. 1. Bhajan Lal did not admit or deny the same. Thereupon defendant no. 1 filed application dated 1.10.2007 (Annexure P/1) seeking direction to Bhajan Lal to give specimen writing for the purpose of comparing the same with aforesaid account statements. However, at that stage, when evidence of plaintiff was being recorded, the said application was not pressed with liberty to press it at the stage of defendants' evidence. However, it was not pressed at the time of defendants' evidence. After the defendants' evidence was concluded, application Annexure R/1 was moved seeking direction to Bhajan Lal to give specimen writing and seeking permission to re -examine Handwriting Expert already examined as DW 2. The said application was opposed by plaintiff by filing reply Annexure R/2.

(2.) LEARNED trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/3 has dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed to assail the said order.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contended that inadvertently the defendants could not press application Annexure P/1 at the stage of their evidence and therefore, now permission should be granted to take specimen handwriting of Bhajan Lal PW 1 and to re -examine the Handwriting Expert already examined as DW 2. The contention has been opposed by learned counsel for respondent no. 1.