Bhola Singh v. and Others Rachpal Singh and Others
Case Details
CR-6710-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -1- - OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR-6710-2025 (O&M) CR Decided on :- 22.09.2025 Decided on : Bhola Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS and Others Rachpal Singh and Others ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M
Legal Reasoning
Present: Mr. Mr. Satvir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner , Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Constitution of India assailing the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Constitution of India assailing the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baghapurana, whereby the application filed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baghapurana, whereby the application filed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baghapurana, whereby the application filed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baghapurana, whereby the application filed by the petitioner Bhola Singh to respondents No.1 to 24 directing defendant–petitioner Bhola Singh to respondents No.1 to 24 directing defendant plaintiffs–respondents No.1 to 24 directing defendant tures in Punjabi was partly allowed. give his signatures in Punjabi was partly allowed. tures in Punjabi was partly allowed. Brief facts 2. respondents instituted a suit for permanent injunction The plaintiffs–respondents instituted a suit for permanent injunction respondents instituted a suit for permanent injunction The plaintiffs restraining defendant No.1 Bhola Singh from alienating the suit property and restraining defendant No.1 Bhola Singh from alienating the suit property and restraining defendant No.1 Bhola Singh from alienating the suit property and restraining defendant No.1 Bhola Singh from alienating the suit property and suit house. The case set restraining defendant No.2 from taking possession of the suit house. The case set restraining defendant No.2 from taking possession of the restraining defendant No.2 from taking possession of the up was that Asha Singh was the original owner up was that Asha Singh after his death, the plaintiffs the original owner and after his death, the plaintiffs executed a writing dated 27.11.2007 in favour of defendant No.1 regarding executed a writing dated 27.11.2007 in favour of defendant No.1 regarding executed a writing dated 27.11.2007 in favour of defendant No.1 regarding executed a writing dated 27.11.2007 in favour of defendant No.1 regarding 1 would possession of the house, which also contained a recital that defendant No.1 would possession of the house, which also contained a recital that defendant No. possession of the house, which also contained a recital that defendant No. not alienate the property. It was alleged that defendant No.1, taking undue not alienate the property. It was alleged that defendant No.1, taking undue not alienate the property. It was alleged that defendant No.1, taking undue not alienate the property. It was alleged that defendant No.1, taking undue advantage of possession, was now threatening to alienate the property to defendant advantage of possession, was now threatening to alienate the property to defendant advantage of possession, was now threatening to alienate the property to defendant advantage of possession, was now threatening to alienate the property to defendant No.2, who was trying to take possession illegally. No.2, who was trying to take possession illegally. No.2, who was trying to take possession illegally. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6710-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -2- - 3. Upon notice, defendants appeared a Upon notice, d nd filed written statements, efendants appeared and filed written statements, asserting that defendant No.1 had already sold the property to defendant No.2 vide asserting that defendant No.1 had already sold the property to defendant No.2 vide asserting that defendant No.1 had already sold the property to defendant No.2 vide asserting that defendant No.1 had already sold the property to defendant No.2 vide registered agreement dated 12.07.2023, possession having also been delivered. registered agreement dated 12.07.2023, possession having also been delivered. registered agreement dated 12.07.2023, possession having also been delivered. 4. During evidence, the plaintiffs moved an application seeking During evidence, the plaintiffs moved an application seeking During evidence, the plaintiffs moved an application seeking During evidence, the plaintiffs moved an application seeking irections to defendant No.1 to give his signatures in Punjabi in Court for directions to defendant No.1 to give his signatures in Punjabi in Court for irections to defendant No.1 to give his signatures in Punjabi in Court for irections to defendant No.1 to give his signatures in Punjabi in Court for comparison with the writing dated 27.11.2007 (Ex.P3) and with an entry in the comparison with the writing dated 27.11.2007 (Ex.P3) and with an entry in the comparison with the writing dated 27.11.2007 (Ex.P3) and with an entry in the comparison with the writing dated 27.11.2007 (Ex.P3) and with an entry in the attendance register of Government Senior Secondary School, Smalsar, produced attendance register of Government Senior Secondary School, Smalsar, produced attendance register of Government Senior Secondary School, Smalsar, produced attendance register of Government Senior Secondary School, Smalsar, produced Bhola Singh had wrongly pleaded that he only signs in by PW5. The stand was that Bhola Singh had wrongly pleaded that he only signs in Bhola Singh had wrongly pleaded that he only signs in by PW5. The stand was that English, whereas he had signed in Punjabi earlier. English, whereas he had signed in Punjabi earlier. English, whereas he had signed in Punjabi earlier. 5. The petitioner opposed the application, contending that the alleged The petitioner opposed the application, contending that the alleged The petitioner opposed the application, contending that the alleged The petitioner opposed the application, contending that the alleged writing was irrelevant, being a photocopy, and had no bearing on the relief of writing was irrelevant, being a photocopy, and had no bearing on the relief of writing was irrelevant, being a photocopy, and had no bearing on the relief of writing was irrelevant, being a photocopy, and had no bearing on the relief of injunction sought in the suit. injunction sought in the suit. 6. The learned Civil Judge, vide the impugned order dated 01.08.2025, The learned Civil Judge, vide the impugned order dated 01.08.2025, The learned Civil Judge, vide the impugned order dated 01.08.2025, The learned Civil Judge, vide the impugned order dated 01.08.2025, partly allowed the application, directing defendant No.1 to give his signatures in partly allowed the application, directing defendant No.1 to give his signatures in partly allowed the application, directing defendant No.1 to give his signatures in partly allowed the application, directing defendant No.1 to give his signatures in ures with Punjabi, while declining the prayer to allow comparison of such signatures with Punjabi, while declining the prayer to allow comparison of such signat Punjabi, while declining the prayer to allow comparison of such signat the disputed writing at that stage. the disputed writing at that stage. Submissions of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Submissions of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Submissions of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner 7. It was argued that the order of the learned Civil Judge is wholly It was argued that the order of the learned Civil Judge is wholly It was argued that the order of the learned Civil Judge is wholly It was argued that the order of the learned Civil Judge is wholly unsustainable. The suit is for permanent injunction, and the alleged writing dated unsustainable. The suit is for permanent injunction, and the alleged writing dated unsustainable. The suit is for permanent injunction, and the alleged writing dated unsustainable. The suit is for permanent injunction, and the alleged writing dated 007 is not the foundation of the suit. The plaintiffs are required to prove 27.11.2007 is not the foundation of the suit. The plaintiffs are required to prove 007 is not the foundation of the suit. The plaintiffs are required to prove 007 is not the foundation of the suit. The plaintiffs are required to prove their case independently. Directing defendant No.1 to give his signatures in their case independently. Directing defendant No.1 to give his signatures in their case independently. Directing defendant No.1 to give his signatures in their case independently. Directing defendant No.1 to give his signatures in Punjabi serves no purpose, particularly when the document in question is only a Punjabi serves no purpose, particularly when the document in question is only a Punjabi serves no purpose, particularly when the document in question is only a Punjabi serves no purpose, particularly when the document in question is only a iginal, which in law cannot be subjected to comparison. It photocopy and not an original, which in law cannot be subjected to comparison. It iginal, which in law cannot be subjected to comparison. It photocopy and not an or was further argued that obtaining signatures of the petitioner without any was further argued that obtaining signatures of the petitioner without any was further argued that obtaining signatures of the petitioner without any was further argued that obtaining signatures of the petitioner without any corresponding legal purpose amounts to harassment and an irrelevant exercise. corresponding legal purpose amounts to harassment and an irrelevant exercise. corresponding legal purpose amounts to harassment and an irrelevant exercise. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6710-2025 (O&M) (O&M) Consideration -3- - 8. er, this Court finds merit in the Having considered the matter, this Court finds merit in the er, this Court finds merit in the Having considered the matt submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is for permanent injunction restraining The suit filed by the plaintiffs is for permanent injunction restraining The suit filed by the plaintiffs is for permanent injunction restraining The suit filed by the plaintiffs is for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property and defendant No.2 from taking defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property and defendant No.2 from taking defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property and defendant No.2 from taking defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property and defendant No.2 from taking . The controversy, therefore, is whether defendant No.1 is lawfully possession. The controversy, therefore, is whether defendant No.1 is lawfully . The controversy, therefore, is whether defendant No.1 is lawfully . The controversy, therefore, is whether defendant No.1 is lawfully entitled to alienate the property and whether the plaintiffs can restrain such entitled to alienate the property and whether the plaintiffs can restrain such entitled to alienate the property and whether the plaintiffs can restrain such entitled to alienate the property and whether the plaintiffs can restrain such alienation. The alleged writing dated 27.11.2007, even if assumed to exist, does alienation. The alleged writing dated 27.11.2007, even if assumed to exist, does alienation. The alleged writing dated 27.11.2007, even if assumed to exist, does alienation. The alleged writing dated 27.11.2007, even if assumed to exist, does the plaintiffs, nor does it form the foundation of the not directly confer title on the plaintiffs, nor does it form the foundation of the the plaintiffs, nor does it form the foundation of the not directly confer title on relief sought. At best, it is a collateral piece of evidence which may be looked into relief sought. At best, it is a collateral piece of evidence which may be looked into relief sought. At best, it is a collateral piece of evidence which may be looked into relief sought. At best, it is a collateral piece of evidence which may be looked into if properly proved. However, it cannot enlarge the scope of the injunction suit. if properly proved. However, it cannot enlarge the scope of the injunction suit. if properly proved. However, it cannot enlarge the scope of the injunction suit. 10. d by the trial Court to defendant No.1 to Further, the direction issued by the trial Court to defendant No.1 to d by the trial Court to defendant No.1 to Further, the direction issue furnish his signatures in Punjabi, without simultaneously allowing comparison furnish his signatures in Punjabi, without simultaneously allowing comparison furnish his signatures in Punjabi, without simultaneously allowing comparison furnish his signatures in Punjabi, without simultaneously allowing comparison with any original admitted or disputed writing, is meaningless. The order merely with any original admitted or disputed writing, is meaningless. The order merely with any original admitted or disputed writing, is meaningless. The order merely with any original admitted or disputed writing, is meaningless. The order merely ow such signatures would requires defendant No.1 to sign, but does not clarify how such signatures would requires defendant No.1 to sign, but does not clarify h requires defendant No.1 to sign, but does not clarify h advance the adjudication of the dispute. Such an exercise serves no judicial advance the adjudication of the dispute. Such an exercise serves no judicial advance the adjudication of the dispute. Such an exercise serves no judicial advance the adjudication of the dispute. Such an exercise serves no judicial purpose. 11. It is well settled that photocopies cannot be used for handwriting or It is well settled that photocopies cannot be used for handwriting or It is well settled that photocopies cannot be used for handwriting or It is well settled that photocopies cannot be used for handwriting or signature comparison under the Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiffs the signature comparison under the mselves Evidence Act. The plaintiffs themselves have relied upon a photocopy of the writing dated 27.11.2007, which in law cannot have relied upon a photocopy of the writing dated 27.11.2007, which in law cannot have relied upon a photocopy of the writing dated 27.11.2007, which in law cannot have relied upon a photocopy of the writing dated 27.11.2007, which in law cannot be compared by an expert. Therefore, directing defendant No.1 to provide fresh be compared by an expert. Therefore, directing defendant No.1 to provide fresh be compared by an expert. Therefore, directing defendant No.1 to provide fresh be compared by an expert. Therefore, directing defendant No.1 to provide fresh signatures for comparison with a photocopy is legally impermissible. signatures for comparison with a photocopy is legally impermissible. signatures for comparison with a photocopy is legally impermissible. 12. The impugned order, instead of clarifying the controversy, introduces The impugned order, instead of clarifying the controversy, introduces The impugned order, instead of clarifying the controversy, introduces The impugned order, instead of clarifying the controversy, introduces confusion by compelling the defendant to sign without any lawful necessity. The confusion by compelling the defendant to sign without any lawful necessity. The confusion by compelling the defendant to sign without any lawful necessity. The confusion by compelling the defendant to sign without any lawful necessity. The power of the Court to direct a party to furnish specimen signatures is to be power of the Court to direct a party to furnish specimen signatures is to be power of the Court to direct a party to furnish specimen signatures is to be power of the Court to direct a party to furnish specimen signatures is to be TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6710-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -4- - when relevant and essential for proper adjudication. exercised cautiously and only when relevant and essential for proper adjudication. when relevant and essential for proper adjudication. exercised cautiously and only In the present case, such direction has no nexus with the real controversy, which is In the present case, such direction has no nexus with the real controversy, which is In the present case, such direction has no nexus with the real controversy, which is In the present case, such direction has no nexus with the real controversy, which is confined to the relief of injunction against alienation. confined to the relief of injunction against alienation. confined to the relief of injunction against alienation. 13. udge, while t also deserves to be noticed that the learned Civil Judge, while It also deserves to be noticed that the learned Civil J t also deserves to be noticed that the learned Civil J allowing the application partly, observed that “as per law well settled” the opposite allowing the application partly, observed that “as per law well settled” the opposite allowing the application partly, observed that “as per law well settled” the opposite allowing the application partly, observed that “as per law well settled” the opposite party can be directed to furnish signatures, but no statutory provision or judicial party can be directed to furnish signatures, but no statutory provision or judicial party can be directed to furnish signatures, but no statutory provision or judicial party can be directed to furnish signatures, but no statutory provision or judicial h a casual precedent was either cited or relied upon to support such proposition. Such a casual precedent was either cited or relied upon to support such proposition. Suc precedent was either cited or relied upon to support such proposition. Suc reference to “well settled law” without identifying the legal basis reflects non- reference to “well settled law” without identifying the legal basis reflects non reference to “well settled law” without identifying the legal basis reflects non reference to “well settled law” without identifying the legal basis reflects non application of mind and renders the order vulnerable. Judicial directions must rest application of mind and renders the order vulnerable. Judicial directions must rest application of mind and renders the order vulnerable. Judicial directions must rest application of mind and renders the order vulnerable. Judicial directions must rest on identifiable principles of law and not on vague assertions. on identifiable principles of law and not on vague assertions. on identifiable principles of law and not on vague assertions. Conclusion 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil opinion that the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil opinion that the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil opinion that the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baghapurana, is legally unsustainable. The order Judge (Junior Division), Baghapurana, is legally unsustainable. The order Judge (Junior Division), Baghapurana, is legally unsustainable. The order Judge (Junior Division), Baghapurana, is legally unsustainable. The order ive his signatures in Punjabi is wholly compelling the defendant–petitioner to give his signatures in Punjabi is wholly ive his signatures in Punjabi is wholly compelling the defendant irrelevant to the subject matter of the suit and is without jurisdiction. The irrelevant to the subject matter of the suit and is without jurisdiction. The irrelevant to the subject matter of the suit and is without jurisdiction. The irrelevant to the subject matter of the suit and is without jurisdiction. The application of the plaintiffs ought to have been dismissed in its entirety. application of the plaintiffs ought to have been dismissed in its entirety. application of the plaintiffs ought to have been dismissed in its entirety. 15. impugned Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. The Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. The set aside. The application filed by the plaintiffs– order dated 01.08.2025 is hereby set aside. The application filed by the plaintiffs set aside. The application filed by the plaintiffs order dated 01.08.2025 is respondents for directing the petitioner to furnish his signatures in Punjabi stands respondents for directing the petitioner to furnish his signatures in Punjabi stands respondents for directing the petitioner to furnish his signatures in Punjabi stands respondents for directing the petitioner to furnish his signatures in Punjabi stands dismissed. 16.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 22, 2025 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document