IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 118 CR-3126-2025 Date of Decision.:22.05.2025 Rakesh Pe**oner Vs. Jai Singh Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Abhimanu, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner herein is the defendant before the trial Court in civil suit No.CS-154-2018 tled “Jai Singh vs. Rakesh” pending before learned Addional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meham. He is aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2025, whereby his applicaon (Annexure P-1) seeking comparison of his signature has been declined. 2. As the paper-book would reveal that a suit for specific performance of contract based upon an agreement to sell dated 19.05.2016 was filed by plainff Jai Singh against the defendant (peoner herein) Rakesh wayback in 2018. It was claimed that as per the agreement, target date was 30.11.2016, but later on it was extended upto 15.05.2017 vide a separate agreement dated 29.11.2016. 3. As stated by learned counsel for the defendant- peoner that he (defendant) was inially proceeded ex parte but a:er se;ng aside the ex parte proceedings, he put in appearance and filed wri<en statement dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-4), wherein he did not dispute the execuon of the agreement dated 19.05.2016 (exhibited later on as Ex.P-1) but denied the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.23 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3126-2025 -2- execuon of the extension agreement dated 29.11.2016 (Ex.P-2). Necessary issues were framed on 02.04.2024. Plainff closed his evidence on 30.10.2024. Defendant- peoner has already appeared in the witness-box on 20.03.2025 and here also, he specifically denied his signature on the extension agreement dated 29.11.2016 (Ex.P2). 4. Learned counsel submits that peoner then moved applicaon (Annexure P-5) seeking permission for comparison of his disputed signature on Ex.P-2 with the admi<ed signatures. Annexure P-6 is the reply filed by the plainff, in which he opposed the applicaon but also stated in the alternave that in case, Court deemed it fit, then the signature of the defendant may be compared on Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 with his available signature on the vakalatnama, wri<en statement, affidavit etc. and that the Court may sent the same to FSL Department with a direcon to compare the same. However, the trial Court by way of impugned order dated 12.05.2025 declined the said request by observing that defendant had not denied his signature on the extension agreement specifically. 5. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel has drawn a<enon towards wri<en statement, wherein the execuon of the extension agreement dated 29.11.2016 was denied by the defendant and even in his tesmony, he has denied the same. 6. Considering the pleadings of the pares and the tesmony of the defendant- peoner, and in order to resolve the dispute effecvely, it would have been most appropriate for the trial Court to send the document in NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.23 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3126-2025 -3- queson i.e. extension agreement dated 29.11.2016, to the FSL Madhuban for ge;ng the disputed signature of the defendant compared with his admi<ed signature available on agreement to sell dated 19.05.2016 (Ex.P-1) and other documents like his vakalatnama, wri<en statement etc., parcularly when plainff- respondent himself had made such a prayer. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances the impugned order dated 12.05.2025 is hereby set aside. 8. Trial Court is directed to get the disputed signature of the defendant- peoner on Ex.P-2 i.e. extension agreement dated 29.11.2016 compared with his admi<ed signature, from FSL Madhuban or any other Government Lab, on charges payable by peoner- defendnat. 9. Since this peon is being disposed of without issuing any noce to the respondent- plainff in order to avoid unnecessary delay, therefore, respondent will be at liberty to approach this Court, in case, he feels aggrieved. It may also be menoned that the peon is being disposed of without issuing any noce to respondent considering the fact that he himself had prayed to the trial Court that document in queson may be sent to FSL, Madhuban for necessary comparison. Disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE May 22, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.23 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document