CR-5036-2026 (O&M) 1 Sr. No.158 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5036-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 27th July 2026 CHARANJIT KAUR .....…Petitioner versus GAGANDEEP SINGH ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta (Zira), Advocate for the petitioner. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The present Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 115 CPC for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, whereby, the petitioner-defendant has not been permitted to examine the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert for comparison of the disputed signatures on the pronote and the receipt. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. 3. While dismissing the application filed by the petitioner- defendant, the trial Court has observed that even previous application moved by the petitioner-defendant with a similar request was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2026. The said order has become final; neither any review application was filed, nor said order was challenged by filing any Revision Petition. It is further observed by the trial Court that the present application has been moved again with the similar request, as such, dismissed. SIMRANDEEP KAUR 2026.07.31 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5036-2026 (O&M) 2 4. The reasons recorded by the trial Court are in resonance with the contents of the earlier order dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure P-4), whereby application moved by the petitioner was dismissed. In the said application, a request was made for comparison of the disputed signatures from a Government Science Laboratory and a prayer in the alternative was also made that defendant is ready to give specimen signatures in the Court. Similar request has been made by the petitioner in the second applictaion seeking permission to examine the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert for comparison of the disputed signatures on the pronote and the receipt. The petitioner cannot be permitted to repeatedly file application by twisting the wording, as such, no illegality is found in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 5. The application moved by the petitioner-defendant has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. No illegality or irregularity is found in the impugned order dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-1). 5. Consequently, the present Civil Revision has no merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) JUDGE 27th July 2026 simran/atulsethi Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SIMRANDEEP KAUR 2026.07.31 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document