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