Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamal Singh (Now Deceased) Thr Lrs vs Suneeta And Ors on 1 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
CR No.560 of 2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:042502
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
113 CR No.560 of 2024 (O&M)
Reserved on : 15.03.2024
Date of Decision : 01.04.2024
Kamal Singh (deceased) through LRs ....Petitioners
VERSUS
Suneeta and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Tushar Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff-
petitioner challenging the order dated 28.11.2023 dismissing the application
for additional evidence.
2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance and
for possession qua the agreement to sell dated 07.07.2004. The stand taken
by the defendant-respondents in the written statement was that defendant-
respondent No.1 and mother of defendant-respondent No.2 had returned the
amount of Rs.15,000/- with interest to the plaintiff-petitioner within one year
on 10.08.2005 in the presence of the witnesses and a receipt was also
executed in this regard in favour of defendant-respondent No.1 and mother
of defendant-respondent No.2 in the presence of the witnesses. When the
case was fixed for rebuttal evidence an application was filed for leading
additional evidence on the ground that the defendant-respondents had
produced a receipt in their evidence as Ex.D1 on which the signatures of the
plaintiff-petitioner had been falsely created by the defendant-respondents as
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.560 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:042502
the plaintiff-petitioner had never signed on the said receipt (Ex.D1) and,
therefore, the necessity to examine a handwriting expert. The said
application was dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence, the present
revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that
the application ought to have been allowed as the plaintiff-petitioner never
issued any receipt and never put his signatures on the receipt and that the
signatures were forged. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would
further contend that the receipt with forged signatures has been produced by
the defendant-respondents and therefore it was necessary to examine a
handwriting expert. It has further been contended that the admitted
signatures of the plaintiff-petitioner are available on the plaint and hence the
same should have been taken and the application ought to have been
allowed.
4. Heard.
5. The case is admittedly at the stage of rebuttal evidence. The
plea regarding the receipt was clearly taken in the written statement. The
Trial Court while dismissing the application has noticed that the application
was not supported by any affidavit and that it did not mention as to which
was the admitted signatures of the plaintiff-petitioner with which the
questioned signatures were to be compared. A perusal of the application for
leading additional evidence, which has been appended with the present
petition as Annexure P-4, reveals that the same is totally bereft of any
details. The application is neither verified nor supported by any affidavit.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with
the impugned order. There is no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.560 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:042502
it's jurisdiction by the Trial Court. The present revision petition being
devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
01.04.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
