RAM KUMAR Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner; herein, filed Civil Suit No. 451 dated 26.10.2005 before the trial Court, against the respondents, herein, for declaration to the effect that he is owner and occupier in equal share along with the respondents of the suit land, more fully described in the cause title of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application for permission to examine handwriting expert to compare the signature of the respondent No. 1, herein, on the document dated 24.11.1991 (Exhibit PW-3/B). It was averred in the application that there had been an agreement dated 24.11.1991 in between the petitioner and Raj Kumar (respondent No. 1) and others, wherein the petitioner was separated from the family temporarily, by giving him one acre of land, 10 quintals of wheat and a house. However, the respondent No. 1 refused to admit his signature on this agreement, when that was put to him, when he appeared as his own witness, at the time of leading evidence by the respondents.

(2.) It was further averred that the petitioner wants to get the signature of Raj Kumar (respondent No. 1, herein) compared with his signature on document dated 24.11.1991 (Exhibit PW-3/B). It was also averred that this comparison of signatures is necessary, as the same shall clinch the issue between the parties and shall help the Court to adjudicate the case properly. It was also averred that the handwriting expert could not be examined in evidence by the petitioner, in affirmative, as this document was not put to the respondent No. 1, and he had not specifically denied his signature, thereon, which he denied after seeing it.

(3.) This application, on the other hand, was opposed by the respondents by filing written reply, thereto, averring, therein, that the petitioner cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal by way of acceptance of this application and he should have produced the evidence, which he is seeking to produce, at the time, when he was leading evidence in affirmative. Therefore, the evidence which was to be led by him in affirmative, cannot be allowed to be led in rebuttal. Even the document dated 24.11.1991 (Exhibit PW-3/B) was denied. It was also averred that the comparison of the signatures of the respondent No. 1 is not necessary at all. Rest of the averments contained in the application were controverted and the prayer for dismissal, thereof, was, thus, made.