24.02.2025 M/s Ganpa Ganpati Estates and another v. Jagdev Sing Singh alias Jasdev Singh and anothe another
Case Details
1 CR-3643-2022 (O&M (O&M) [205] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CR-3643- Date of De -2022 (O&M) of Decision : 24.02.2025 M/s Ganpa Ganpati Estates and another …Petitioners versus Jagdev Sing Singh alias Jasdev Singh and anothe another ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present: vocate Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ocate Mr. Aayush Goyal, Advocate for the respondents. *** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] Challenge is to order dated dated 07.07.2022 passed by the Civ e Civil Judge (Juni e (Junior Division), Bathinda, whereby hereby, application filed by the plainti plaintiff giving direc direction to the defendants to give give their specimen signatures has bee as been ned. declined. [2] Plaintiff filed a suit seeking d king declaration to the effect that sa that sale deed No.58 No.5858 dated 17.10.2012 executed b uted by plaintiff in favour of defendan fendants with respec respect to suit property is illegal, null l, null, void, ineffective, nonest, and wa and was unenforcea forceable for all intents and purpose urposes, as the cheques issued by th by the
Legal Reasoning
defendants dants as consideration of the sale stan le stand dishonored. Further prayer wa yer was for grant of rant of decree of possession and perm permanent injunction. In the alternat lternate, plaintiff so tiff sought recovery of Rs.19,58,000/ 8,000/- including Rs. 11,00,000/- as th as the remaining s ining sale consideration and Rs.8,58,0 8,58,000/- being interest. RAJNEESH SHARMA [3] 2025.03.07 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Defendants have contested the ed the suit. 2 CR-3643-2022 (O&M (O&M) [4] Plaintiff in the plaint claim claimed certain communications an ns and cheques is ues issued by defendants from tim time to time in discharge of th of the liabilities, w lities, which have been denied by the y the defendants. In order to prove th rove the said docum documents, plaintiff filed applicatio lication to examine Handwriting an ing and Fingerprint erprints Expert accompanied by an ap application seeking direction to th n to the defendants dants to give their specimen signa signatures. The application seekin seeking direction to tion to the defendants to give thei e their specimen signatures has bee as been declined by ned by the learned Trial Court observin bserving as under:- “7. I have considered the a he aforesaid contentions raised by t by the learned counsel for both the pa e parties and have perused the case fi se file very minutely. In the considered ered view of this Court, first of all t all the plaintiff has to prove his case by se by standing on his own legs and has has to bring the evidence by himself in lf in order to prove his pleading. There here is no doubt that the plaintiff can ta n take the assistance of handwriting an ng and fingerprint expert and can exami xamine him as well, as per the provisio visions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. H 2. However, in this case, the plaintiff a tiff are seeking permission of this Cou s Court to ask defendant to give the their signatures/writing in English as sh as well as in Punjabi script. As p As per considered view of this Court, th rt, the said direction can not be given iven to the defendants since defendants ants can not be compelled to give fre e fresh signatures/writing for the purp purpose of comparison to be made de by Handwriting and Finger Prin Print Expert of plaintiff. Again it it is reiterated that the plaintiff has to as to stand on his own legs and thus ca us can not be allowed to lead evidence nce by compelling the defendants to gi to give their signatures/writing in the C e Court for the purposes of compariso arison. Accordingly, the prayer made b de by the plaintiff in the application tion is devoid of merits and application tion for directing defendants No.1 and and 2 to give their specimen writing iting/signatures in English as well ell as Punjabi script, stands dismissed
Decision
d and disposed of.” [5] Mr. Singh, counsel for the r the petitioners while assailing th ling the impugned o gned order relies upon Section 73 of 73 of the Evidence Act to submit th mit that RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3643-2022 (O&M (O&M) 3 the Court ourt ought to have directed the de the defendants to give their specime pecimen signatures tures so that the same can be comp compared to prove the documents ents in dispute. In te. In order to hammerforth his conte s contention, he relies upon ‘M/s Gur /s Guru Nanak Co k Construction Company versus sus M/s Jai Bharat Steel Rollin Rolling Mills, Jaitu , Jaitu’, Civil Revision No.236 of 19 of 1976, decided on 07.05.1976, ‘Ha , ‘Har Singh vers versus Krishan Gopal’, Civil Revis evision No.1109 of 1973, decided o ed on 08.03.1976 1976, ‘Lakhbir Singh versus Ku Kulwant Singh and others’, C ’, CR No.1561 of 61 of 2022, decided on 15.09.2022, ‘ 22, ‘Guddi Alias Kamlesh and othe others versus Kar Kartar Singh and others’, Civil Re il Revision No.2100 of 2017, decide ecided on 13.09.2 .09.2022 and ‘E. Vishnu Namboo boothiri versus V. Balachandran dran’, 2020(2) IL ) ILR (Kerala) 187. [6] Per contra, counsel for the res respondents-defendants submits th its that the learned earned Trial Court has rightly decli declined the application filed by th by the plaintiff. T tiff. The plaintiff having asserted an ted and propounded the documents, h , he needs to pro s to prove the same and has to stand on on its own legs. [7] I have heard counsel for the or the parties and have carefully gon lly gone through the gh the records of the case. [8] In order to appreciate the con he contention raised by counsel for th l for the parties, it w es, it would be apt to peruse Section ection 45 & Section 73 of the India e Indian Evidence A ence Act, which reads as under:- 45. Opinions of experts.—When hen the Court has to form an opinio pinion upon a point of foreign law, or o or of science, or art, or as to identity tity of handwriting or finger impressio ssions, the opinions upon that point oint of persons specially skilled in suc such foreign law, science or art, or or in questions as to identity of han handwriting or finger impressions a ns are RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document relevant facts. Such persons are called expe experts. 4 CR-3643-2022 (O&M (O&M) ions Illustrations (a) The question is, whether t her the death of A was caused by poiso oison. The opinions of experts a rts as to the symptoms produced by t by the poison by which A is supp supposed to have died, are relevant. (b) The question is, whether her A, at the time of doing a certain ac in act, was, by reason of unsoun oundness of mind, incapable of knowin owing the nature of the act, or , or that he was doing what was eith s either law. wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts perts upon the question whether t er the symptoms exhibited by A by A commonly show unsoundness ess of mind, and whether such u ch unsoundness of mind usually rende enders persons incapable of kno f knowing the nature of the acts whi which they do, or of knowing th ng that what they do is either wrong ong or contrary to law, are releva elevant. (c) The question is, whether a her a certain document was written by by A. Another document is prod produced which is proved or admitted tted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts o ts on the question whether the tw e two documents were written by the sa the same person or by different person rsons, are relevant. 73. Comparison of signature, w re, writing or seal with others admitte mitted or proved.—In order to ascerta ertain whether a signature, writing, ng, or seal is that of the person by whom whom it purports to have been written tten or made, any signature, writing o ng or seal admitted or proved to t to the satisfaction of the Court to have ave been written or made by that perso person may be compared with the one w one which is to be proved, although th h that signature, writing, or seal has n as not been produced or proved for a or any other purpose. The Court may direct an t any person present in Court to wri write any words or figures for the the purpose of enabling the Court urt to compare the words or figures so es so written with any words or figur figures RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document alleged to have been written by su by such person. 5 CR-3643-2022 (O&M (O&M) [9] This section applies also, lso, with any necessary modifications, ons, to finger-impressions. ” In the considered opinion of on of this Court, Section 73 empowe powers the Court to ourt to direct any person to write any ite any words or figures for the purpos purpose to compare mpare the words or figures so written ritten and it is always in the interest o terest of both the pa the parties that the signatures in disp in dispute are compared with admitte dmitted signatures tures. Reference can be made to ratio ratio of law laid down in ‘M/s Gur Guru Nanak Con Construction Company’s case (su (supra), wherein it was observed a erved as under:- 4. From the above referred erred to provisions, it is clear that th at the opinions of the Expert Witne itnesses become relevant when th en the identity of handwriting or sign signatures is in dispute. Section 73 73 of the Act empowers the Court ourt to direct any person present ent in Court to write any words or fi or figures for the purpose of enablin abling the Court to compare the wor words or figures so written with an th any words or figures so written by n by such person. The earlier part art of provisions of section 73 pro provides that in order to ascerta ertain whether a signature, writing ting or seal is that of the person b on by whom it purports to have been been written or made, any signatur ature, writing or seal, admitted or or proved to the satisfaction of th of the Court to have been written o ten or made by that person may b ay be compared with the one which hich is to be proved, although th h that signature, writing or seal has has not been produced or proved fo ed for any other purpose. This would ould show that in order to adjudica dicate upon the disputed signatures ures, writing or seal, any signatur ature, writing or seal, admitted or or proved to the satisfaction of th of the Court, to have been written tten or made by that person, can b an be compared with the disputed o ed ones. It is in this back ground th d that the Court has been given pow power to direct any person present sent in Court to write any words or fi or figures for the purpose of enablin abling RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the Court to compare the wor words or figures so written with an th any CR-3643-2022 (O&M (O&M) 6 words or figures alleged to hav o have been written by such person. on. In our considered opinion, the , the bare reading of both the these provisions show that the Cou Court has been empowered to dire irect any person to give specimen en signatures or handwriting with with a view to get the same compar mpared with the disputed ones. Th . This power may be exercised by the y the Court for its own satisfaction o ion or even on an application bei being made by any party to th to the proceedings. If these sections ions are interpreted to mean that th at this can only be done by the Co Court for its own satisfaction, th , that would be perpetuate injustice stice. In that case persons who ma o may have written or signed valuab luable documents and on mere deni denial on, their behalf about the said said documents having been signed o ned or written, would render the aggr aggrieved party without the remedy edy of getting the disputed signatures tures or writing compared and prove roved to the satisfaction of the Cou Court that the said documents we were signed or written by the defaul efaulting party. The provisions have ave to be interpreted so as to give th ve the fullest meaning with a view iew to do justice between the partie arties. When a dispute regarding th ng the signatures or writing on a do a document is before the Court, it t, it is always the endeavour of th f the Court to reach at the corre orrect conclusion and without this this power having been exercise rcised, whether suo motu or at the in e instance of the aggrieved party, th ty, the decision on these matters, is s, is likely to be made without th ut the assistance of the experts in s inspite of such expert's evidenc idence having been made relevant un t under the provisions of section 45 45 of the Act. 5. The power under sectio ection 73 of the Act can be exercise rcised for issuing directions to any any person present in Court. Th t. The proviso to Order 3, Rule 1 e 1 of the Code of Civil Procedur edure, provides that though a party is rty is appearing by a recognized age agent or by a pleader in a case, the , the Court can always direct party arty to appear in Court in person wh when the need arises. Therefore, th re, the combined reading of proviso t iso to Order 3, Rule, 1 of the Code ode of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Procedure, and sections ions 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidenc idence 7 Act, makes it abundantly clea clear that in a proper case the Cou Court has got power to direct the p the person concerned to appear an r and give his signatures and handw ndwriting so that the comparison ca n can be made in order to arrive rive at the correct conclusion as as to whether the disputed documen uments were signed or written by th by the person who denied to have don e done so. Similar view has been take taken in M. Naraynaswami v. Y v. Yangatanna, AIR 1975 Andhr ndhra Pradesh 88. In view of the above, this C this Court finds that the learned Tri ed Trial CR-3643-2022 (O&M (O&M) [10] Court erred t erred in refusing to exercise its di its discretion and committed materi material irregularity ularity in passing the order. Resulta Resultantly, the impugned order is r is set aside. The . The application filed by the plaintiff laintiff is allowed. [11] All pending miscellaneous neous application(s), if any, stand stands disposed of ed off. .2025 24.02.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document