138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH NARENDER SINGH BANWARI LAL CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Ms. Neha Bindal, Advocate for Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, HARKESH MANUJA By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 24.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), petitioner-plaintiff the rebuttal stage to examine handwriting expert, stands dismissed. 2. Briefly stating, the petitioner Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest against respondent pronote as well as receipt dated 19.05.2014. Upon appearance, the respondent-defendant denied his signatures over the pronote and the receipt by alleging the said document to Relevant paragraph from preliminary objection of the written statement filed on behalf of “1. eyes of law nor susta pronote and receipt has ever been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged pronote and receipt does no bear the signature of the defendant and thus, the same is result of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: NARENDER SINGH Versus BANWARI LAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Ms. Neha Bindal, Advocate for Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to dated 24.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Ellenabad whereby, an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff for seeking permission to lead additional evidence the rebuttal stage to examine handwriting expert, stands dismissed. Briefly stating, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for re along with interest against respondent pronote as well as receipt dated 19.05.2014. Upon appearance, the defendant denied his signatures over the pronote and the receipt by alleging the said document to be forged and fabricated one. Relevant paragraph from preliminary objection of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent-defendant is reproduced hereunder: That the suit of the plaintiff is neither maintainable in the eyes of law nor sustainable in the present form as no such pronote and receipt has ever been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged pronote and receipt does no bear the signature of the defendant and thus, the same is result of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6846-2019 Date of Decision: September 26, 2025 ........Petitioner ........Respondent HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the petitioner. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to dated 24.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, whereby, an application filed on behalf of the seeking permission to lead additional evidence at the rebuttal stage to examine handwriting expert, stands dismissed. plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of along with interest against respondent-defendant based on pronote as well as receipt dated 19.05.2014. Upon appearance, the defendant denied his signatures over the pronote and the be forged and fabricated one. Relevant paragraph from preliminary objection of the written statement is reproduced hereunder:- That the suit of the plaintiff is neither maintainable in the inable in the present form as no such pronote and receipt has ever been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged pronote and receipt does no bear the signature of the defendant and thus, the same is result of 2019 September 26, 2025 Petitioner By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to dated 24.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, whereby, an application filed on behalf of the at covery of defendant based on pronote as well as receipt dated 19.05.2014. Upon appearance, the defendant denied his signatures over the pronote and the be forged and fabricated one. Relevant paragraph from preliminary objection of the written statement That the suit of the plaintiff is neither maintainable in the inable in the present form as no such pronote and receipt has ever been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged pronote and receipt does no bear the signature of the defendant and thus, the same is result of TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.30 23:15 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-6846-2019 -2- forgery and fabrication by the plaintiff in connivance of the witnesses and scriber of the alleged pronote and receipt.” 3. Thereafter, both the parties led their respective evidences, however, at the stage of rebuttal, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application for seeking permission to examine fingerprint and handwriting expert by way of additional evidence. Relevant Paragraph Nos.1 and 2 of the application are reproduced hereunder for reference:- “1. That the above noted suit is pending before this Hon’ble Court and fixed for today for rebuttal. 2. That in the present suit the defendant denial the execution of pronote and receipt and also denial his signature on the pronote and receipt. Now the evidence of finger and handwriting expert is very much necessary for the proper and just decision of the present case.” The said prayer was opposed at the instance of respondent- defendant. The learned trial Court vide order dated 24.09.2019 rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff. Hence, the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the examination of fingerprint and handwriting expert shall further the cause of justice as the respondent-defendant has denied his signatures over the pronote and the receipt. He thus submits that the report from the expert would help the Court to adjudicate upon the issue in a complete and effective manner. 5. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of respondent. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper book. TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.30 23:15 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-6846-2019 -3- 7. A perusal of the record shows that at the very first instance when respondent filed his written statement before the learned trial Court, he denied his signatures over the pronote and the receipt while alleging the said document to be fraudulent and fabricated one. In such circumstances, when the primary burden to prove the genuineness of the pronote and receipt was upon the petitioner-plaintiff, he was required to examine fingerprint and handwriting expert in his affirmative evidence. At this stage of rebuttal, the petitioner cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae and that too with no averments made in the application by him to the effect that the petitioner could not examine the handwriting expert at the appropriate stage, despite all due diligence. 8. Accordingly, there being no jurisdictional error in the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by learned trial Court, the present revision petition being devoid of merits is thus, dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 26.09.2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.30 23:15 I agree to specified portions of this document