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