KARANJEET SINGH Vs. AMARPREET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside order dated 01.11.2017 (Annexure P-8) of the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, dismissing his application seeking permission to examine handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assiduously argued that the learned trial court has committed a grave error in not permitting the petitioner to examine handwriting expert at the stage of rebuttal evidence holding that he was required to examine him only in affirmative evidence. He further contended that in order to arrive at a right conclusion, learned trial court should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to compare signatures of the respondent on the agreement to sell and other documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P6, by getting an expert examined in rebuttal evidence, especially when the respondent-defendant, during his cross-examination, denied his signatures thereon. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decisions in Kewal Singh versus Jagjit Singh, (2007) 4 RCR(Civ) 631(P & H) and Jaswinder Singh versus Rajwant Kaur and others,2014 36 RCR(Civ) 94

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner observing that the hand-writing expert cannot be allowed to be examined in rebuttal evidence, especially when it was well within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time when he was leading evidence in affirmative, which, ultimately, was closed by order of the court. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon judicial pronouncements in Ram Kumar versus Raj Kumar and others, (2014) 174 PunLR 536; Gurcharan Kaur and others versus Gurjant Singh, (2017) 187 PunLR 558 and Sukhwinder Pal Singh versus Bhupinder Kaur, (2014) 175 PunLR 20. He further contended that a party who engages a Handwriting Expert, ordinarily, he toes on his line and therefore, the application, being without any merit, is liable to be dismissed. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon judgments rendered in Jaimal Singh and others versus Smt.Naranjan Kaur and others, (2011) 162 PunLR 408 and Gulzar Ali versus State of H.P., (1998) 4 JT 342 (SC).