Mohan Dass v. Ajmer Singh
Case Details
CR-6798-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-6798-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 24.09.2025 Decided on : Mohan Singh @ Mohan Dass Mohan Singh @ Mohan Dass ....Petitioner VERSUS Ajmer Singh ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M
Legal Reasoning
Present: Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the filed by the petitioner/defendant for setting aside the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/defendant for setting aside the filed by the petitioner/defendant for setting aside the Constitution of India has been impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, whereby the application dated 27.08.2024 moved by the Division), Barnala, whereby the application dated 27.08.2024 moved by the Division), Barnala, whereby the application dated 27.08.2024 moved by the Division), Barnala, whereby the application dated 27.08.2024 moved by the rint expert to inspect and take petitioner for permitting a handwriting and fingerprint expert to inspect and take petitioner for permitting a handwriting and fingerp petitioner for permitting a handwriting and fingerp photographs of the promissory note and receipt was dismissed. photographs of the promissory note and receipt was dismissed. photographs of the promissory note and receipt was dismissed. Brief Facts 2. It It It It is is is is submitted submitted submitted submitted that a civil that a civil that a civil that a civil suit was suit was suit was suit was instituted by instituted by instituted by instituted by the the the the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of ₹13,60,000/ respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of ₹13,60,000/–. The suit was on the basis of a promissory note and receipt alleged to have been The suit was on the basis of a promissory note and receipt alleged to have been The suit was on the basis of a promissory note and receipt alleged to have been The suit was on the basis of a promissory note and receipt alleged to have been of the respondent and signed by certain executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent and signed by certain of the respondent and signed by certain executed by the petitioner in favour witnesses. The petitioner filed written statement submitting that no loan was witnesses. The petitioner filed written statement submitting that no loan was witnesses. The petitioner filed written statement submitting that no loan was witnesses. The petitioner filed written statement submitting that no loan was obtained by him and that the promissory note and receipt were forged and obtained by him and that the promissory note and receipt were forged and obtained by him and that the promissory note and receipt were forged and obtained by him and that the promissory note and receipt were forged and therein. It was fabricated and that there were material alterations and cuttings therein. It was fabricated and that there were material alterations and cuttings fabricated and that there were material alterations and cuttings further pleaded that the respondent is doing the business of commission agent, and further pleaded that the respondent is doing the business of commission agent, and further pleaded that the respondent is doing the business of commission agent, and further pleaded that the respondent is doing the business of commission agent, and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6798-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -2- - that the petitioner used to sell his crops with him, and that the promissory note was that the petitioner used to sell his crops with him, and that the promissory note was that the petitioner used to sell his crops with him, and that the promissory note was that the petitioner used to sell his crops with him, and that the promissory note was were framed lying with the plaintiff as security and the same was misused. Issues were framed lying with the plaintiff as security and the same was misused. Issues lying with the plaintiff as security and the same was misused. Issues whether there exist material in the suit wherein issue No. 8 was framed as to “whether there exist material in the suit wherein issue No. 8 was framed as to in the suit wherein issue No. 8 was framed as to alterations alterations alterations in in in receipt dated 18.12.2019 the demand promissory note-cum-receipt dated 18.12.2019 the demand promissory note the demand promissory note propounded by the plaintiff? OPD.” propounded by the plaintiff? OPD 3. ioner/defendant After the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, the petitioner/defendant After the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, the petit After the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, the petit application seeking permission moved an application seeking permission application seeking permission application seeking permission to allow a document and to allow a document and to allow a document and to allow a document and handwriting/fingerprint expert to inspect and take photographs of the note and handwriting/fingerprint expert to inspect and take photographs of the note and handwriting/fingerprint expert to inspect and take photographs of the note and handwriting/fingerprint expert to inspect and take photographs of the note and receipt. It was submitted that the burden of proof on issue No. 8 regarding material receipt. It was submitted that the burden of proof on issue No. 8 regarding material receipt. It was submitted that the burden of proof on issue No. 8 regarding material receipt. It was submitted that the burden of proof on issue No. 8 regarding material n the promissory note and receipt was upon him and accordingly, alteration in the promissory note and receipt was upon him and accordingly, n the promissory note and receipt was upon him and accordingly, n the promissory note and receipt was upon him and accordingly, permission be granted to take photographs of these documents by expert in the permission be granted to take photographs of these documents by expert in the permission be granted to take photographs of these documents by expert in the permission be granted to take photographs of these documents by expert in the presence of court staff or opposite counsel. presence of court staff or opposite counsel. 4. The learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground that The learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground t The learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground t The learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground t earlier also a similar application had been moved which was dismissed on earlier also a similar application had been moved which was dismissed on earlier also a similar application had been moved which was dismissed on earlier also a similar application had been moved which was dismissed on 15.09.2023, and the revision filed against that order was dismissed by this Court on 15.09.2023, and the revision filed against that order was dismissed by this Court on 15.09.2023, and the revision filed against that order was dismissed by this Court on 15.09.2023, and the revision filed against that order was dismissed by this Court on 14.02.2024. The trial court further observed that in the application under Order 14.02.2024. The trial court further observed that in the application under Order 14.02.2024. The trial court further observed that in the application under Order 14.02.2024. The trial court further observed that in the application under Order C the petitioner sought permission to deposit diet money for XVI Rule 1 CPC the petitioner sought permission to deposit diet money for C the petitioner sought permission to deposit diet money for XVI Rule 1 CP nd Fingerprint summoning witnesses including Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Fingerprint summoning witnesses including Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwriting summoning witnesses including Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwriting Expert, without disclosing that permission to examine the expert had already been Expert, without disclosing that permission to examine the expert had already been Expert, without disclosing that permission to examine the expert had already been Expert, without disclosing that permission to examine the expert had already been ld that though in principle expert opinion can be declined earlier. The Court also held that though in principle expert opinion can be ld that though in principle expert opinion can be declined earlier. The sought even at a belated stage, the same does not apply to the facts of this case sought even at a belated stage, the same does not apply to the facts of this case sought even at a belated stage, the same does not apply to the facts of this case sought even at a belated stage, the same does not apply to the facts of this case because the permission to examine the expert had already been declined by this because the permission to examine the expert had already been declined by this because the permission to examine the expert had already been declined by this because the permission to examine the expert had already been declined by this Court. Accordingly, the application was dismissed Court. Accordingly, the application was dismi ssed vide order dated 06.08.2025. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6798-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -3- - Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that the impugned order is wholly erroneous. It is argued that the earlier application was impugned order is wholly erroneous. It is argued that the earlier application was impugned order is wholly erroneous. It is argued that the earlier application was impugned order is wholly erroneous. It is argued that the earlier application was the ground that no specific document had been mentioned and the dismissed on the ground that no specific document had been mentioned and the the ground that no specific document had been mentioned and the the ground that no specific document had been mentioned and the purpose of examination was not explained. Therefore, a fresh application was purpose of examination was not explained. Therefore, a fresh application was purpose of examination was not explained. Therefore, a fresh application was purpose of examination was not explained. Therefore, a fresh application was moved in which specific details of the documents to be inspected were clearly moved in which specific details of the documents to be inspected were clearly moved in which specific details of the documents to be inspected were clearly moved in which specific details of the documents to be inspected were clearly It is submitted that the handwriting and stated and the purpose was explained. It is submitted that the handwriting and It is submitted that the handwriting and stated and the purpose was explained. fingerprint expert’s inspection is necessary for a just and fair adjudication of the fingerprint expert’s inspection is necessary for a just and fair adjudication of the fingerprint expert’s inspection is necessary for a just and fair adjudication of the fingerprint expert’s inspection is necessary for a just and fair adjudication of the issue framed on material alterations, and, therefore issue framed on material alterations, and ourt erred in therefore, the learned trial Court erred in ing to the earlier dismissal. rejecting the application merely by referring to the earlier dismissal. rejecting the application merely by referr Findings 6. I have considered the submissions and examined the record. It is not I have considered the submissions and examined the record. It is not I have considered the submissions and examined the record. It is not I have considered the submissions and examined the record. It is not in dispute that an earlier application for the same relief had been dismissed by the in dispute that an earlier application for the same relief had been dismissed by the in dispute that an earlier application for the same relief had been dismissed by the in dispute that an earlier application for the same relief had been dismissed by the 14.02.2024. In that order ourt and that the order was upheld by this Court on 14.02.2024. In that order ourt and that the order was upheld by this Court on trial Court and that the order was upheld by this Court on this Court had noticed that the application did not specify the documents or the this Court had noticed that the application did not specify the documents or the this Court had noticed that the application did not specify the documents or the this Court had noticed that the application did not specify the documents or the purpose of expert inspection, that the petitioner had admitted his signatures on the purpose of expert inspection, that the petitioner had admitted his signatures on the purpose of expert inspection, that the petitioner had admitted his signatures on the purpose of expert inspection, that the petitioner had admitted his signatures on the led more than ten documents in his written statement, and that despite having availed more than ten documents in his written statement, and that despite having avai documents in his written statement, and that despite having avai opportunities he had failed to lead defence evidence. It was in that context that the opportunities he had failed to lead defence evidence. It was in that context that the opportunities he had failed to lead defence evidence. It was in that context that the opportunities he had failed to lead defence evidence. It was in that context that the earlier revision was dismissed. earlier revision was dismissed. 7. In the present case, although the petitioner has attempted to supply In the present case, although the petitioner has attempted to supply In the present case, although the petitioner has attempted to supply In the present case, although the petitioner has attempted to supply further particulars by specifying the documents and the purpose of examination, further particulars by specifying the documents and the purpose of examination, further particulars by specifying the documents and the purpose of examination, further particulars by specifying the documents and the purpose of examination, the essential fact remains that the same relief which had earlier been declined up to the essential fact remains that the same relief which had earlier been declined up to the essential fact remains that the same relief which had earlier been declined up to the essential fact remains that the same relief which had earlier been declined up to ourt has also rightly observed that in this Court is being sought again. The trial Court has also rightly observed that in ourt has also rightly observed that in this Court is being s the application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC the petitioner sought to summon the the application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC the petitioner sought to summon the the application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC the petitioner sought to summon the the application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC the petitioner sought to summon the handwriting and fingerprint expert as a witness by depositing diet money, without handwriting and fingerprint expert as a witness by depositing diet money, without handwriting and fingerprint expert as a witness by depositing diet money, without handwriting and fingerprint expert as a witness by depositing diet money, without TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6798-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -4- - rt had earlier declined permission for examination addressing the fact that the court had earlier declined permission for examination rt had earlier declined permission for examination addressing the fact that the cou of the expert. This conduct was a relevant circumstance for the trial court to of the expert. This conduct was a relevant circumstance for the trial court to of the expert. This conduct was a relevant circumstance for the trial court to of the expert. This conduct was a relevant circumstance for the trial court to consider. 8. It is therefore clear that the present application is nothing but an It is therefore clear that the present application is nothing but an It is therefore clear that the present application is nothing but an It is therefore clear that the present application is nothing but an attempt to re-agitate the issue which has a lready attained finality by virtue of the agitate the issue which has already attained finality by virtue of the lready attained finality by virtue of the earlier order passed by this Court on 14.02.2024. The jurisdiction under Article earlier order passed by this Court on 14.02.2024. The jurisdiction under Article earlier order passed by this Court on 14.02.2024. The jurisdiction under Article earlier order passed by this Court on 14.02.2024. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and can be exercised only 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and can be exercised only 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and can be exercised only 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and can be exercised only where where where the the the impugned order suffers from patent impugned order suffers from patent impugned order suffers from patent gality, perversity, or illegality, perversity, or ille ille jurisdictional error. The impugned order dated 06.08.2025 is based on sound jurisdictional error. The impugned order dated 06.08.2025 is based on sound jurisdictional error. The impugned order dated 06.08.2025 is based on sound jurisdictional error. The impugned order dated 06.08.2025 is based on sound reasoning, supported by the earlier dismissal of an identical application, and does reasoning, supported by the earlier dismissal of an identical application, and does reasoning, supported by the earlier dismissal of an identical application, and does reasoning, supported by the earlier dismissal of an identical application, and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. Conclusion 9. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present civil view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present civil view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present civil order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned revision petition. The impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned revision petition. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala is upheld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala is upheld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala is upheld. 10. 11. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
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. 2025 September 24, 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 2025.09.24 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document