Praveen Ahuja & Ors. vs Bhagwan Dass Ahuja & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3414 Del

     *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of Reserve: August 21, 2009
                                               Date of Order: August 27, 2009
+ RA 306/09 in CM(M)1035/2007
   %                                                                 27.08.2009
     PRAVEEN AHUJA & ORS.                              ..... Petitioners
                     Through:              Mr. O.P.Verma, Adv.

                      versus

         BHAGWAN DASS AHUJA & ORS.                     ..... Respondents
                        Through:

         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
         judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

         ORDER

CM Nos.11589-590/09(condonation of delay)

1. Applications are allowed for the reasons stated therein.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

RA 306/09 in CM(M)1035/2007

1. This application has been made for review of the order dated 23rd

September, 2008. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that this

Court while allowing the petition of the petitioner for examination of

handwriting expert had observed that the comparison of signatures of

respondent/defendant should be done with the admitted signatures

available on record. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that Hindi

signatures of the respondent were not available on record and the

respondent made an application before the Trial Court for taking Hindi

signatures of the respondent but the Trial Court did not allow the

application. The respondent then preferred a Civil Miscellaneous before

this Court which was withdrawn with liberty to file a Revision Petition of the

order dated 23rd September, 2008.

2. This Court in its order dated 23rd September 2008 observed that the

petitioner would be free to engage a handwriting expert for examination of

documents and comparison with the admitted signatures of the

respondent available on record. This observation was made in view of the

fact sample signatures of the respondent had already been taken by the

Court below.

3. The contention of counsel for the revision petitioner is that Hindi

signature or handwriting of the respondent in Hindi was not available on

record and therefore this comparison cannot be done.

4. Normally the comparison is only useful with the previously admitted

signatures, when a person has no opportunity to change or vary his

handwriting or signatures. However, Section 73 of the Evidence Act gives

liberty to the Court to obtain writing/signatures of a party for the purpose

of comparison where admitted signatures are not available. I consider that

the Trial Court should have exercised its discretion under Section 73 of the

Evidence Act in order to allow comparison of the Hindi signatures of the

respondent with those available on documents. The order dated 23rd

September, 2008 is clarified in above terms. The application is disposed

of.

August 27, 2009                                SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
ak