NAWAB SINGH MANES Vs. GUR LAL SINGH MANES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition lays challenge to order dated 22.04.2014 passed by the Additional Civil (Senior Division) Assandh, District Karnal, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for comparison of signatures of Gur Lal Singh (respondent/defendant) affixed on the compromise dated 23.09.2013 with his admitted signatures on the agreement to sell dated 22.12.2005 by a Handwriting Expert has been dis-allowed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.12.2005 purported to be executed by respondent for sale of suit property. The respondent, in the written statement, has denied execution of the agreement but admitted his signatures on the agreement to sell with the plea that the same were obtained on the pretext of preparing a power of attorney. The petitioner adduced his evidence in regard to the agreement to sell as well as his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. When the case was still pending for evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff, closed on 10.10.2013, the parties entered into a compromise dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure P-4).

(3.) The respondent appeared in the witness-box to support his defence plea and the compromise dated 23.09.2013 was put to him in cross-examination but he denied factum of compromise, execution of compromise deed-Mark D and his signatures on the same which has necessitated filing of the application for comparison of his signatures on the compromise with his admitted signatures on the agreement to sell. It is further argued that the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court in declining prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed to sustain as the same are based on complete non-application of mind as well as contrary to facts on record. It is urged that as the compromise deed dated 23.09.2013 came into existence after the petitioner has already adduced his entire evidence and the petitioner could not anticipate that respondent would deny the compromise deed, there was no occasion for him to examine an expert to prove the compromise deed (Annexure P-4), while leading his evidence. It is further submitted that as the document-Mark D came into existence during pendency of the suit, the same could not be a part of the pleadings as the suit was instituted in the year 2011 and the petitioner has already examined his witnesses prior to 23.09.2013.