VARINDER KUMAR KANOJIA Vs. BRIJ MOHAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present revision petition impugning the order dated 09.02.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala whereby the application filed by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) for directing the defendant (respondent herein) to give his specimen handwriting and specimen signatures and also to produce his son Kapil Mahawar to give his specimen handwriting and signatures for comparison with the handwriting and endorsement (Ex.P2) by the handwriting expert in rebuttal, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 02.06.2009 executed by the respondent-defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the sale of suit property situated at Lal Kurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt. Consequential relief for decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from selling, alienating and transferring the suit property has also been sought for. During the pendency of suit when the issues were framed and the petitioner had produced his evidence in affirmative, the case was fixed for defendant's evidence who appeared as DW-1, but the said witness intentionally and willfully denied his signatures on the agreement to sell. Signatures of his son Kapil Mahawar, who signed as a witness, have also been denied. The defendant has denied his own signatures as well as the signatures of his own son-Kapil Mahawar, due to which it became essential for the petitioner to produce a handwriting expert so as to bring a clear picture before the trial Court. Therefore, an application dated 17.01.2017 for directing the respondent-defendant to give his specimen handwriting and specimen signatures and also to produce his son Kapil Mahawar to give his specimen handwriting and signatures for comparison with signatures already appended on the agreement to sell, was filed. But the said application was dismissed vide order dated 09.02.2017 (Annexure P-5). It is the said order which has been challenged through the instant revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that if the petitioner is not allowed to produce handwriting expert in rebuttal, he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Procedure is only handmaid of justice and the merits of a case cannot be altered in the name of technicalities of procedure. The trial Court has committed a grave illegality by debarring the petitioner, to produce the evidence in rebuttal for the purpose of proving his case. In support of his contention, he has referred to the judgment of this Court rendered in Ranjit Singh v. Mehfil Restaurant-2008(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 768 .