Amandeep Singh vs Amarjit Singh and others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—One of the plaintiff is before this court impugning the order dated 28.4.2012 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by him for permission to examine hand-writing expert either in rebuttal evidence or in the alternative by way of additional evidence, was dismissed. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 1.8.1997 filed by Gurdeep Singh against respondent no. 1 Amarjit Singh and the petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 2 to 5, are legal representatives of deceased Gurdeep Singh. It was filed in the year 1998. After the entire evidence of the parties was complete, the application in question was filed. The same having been dismissed, the order is impugned before this court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of the hand-writing expert would be relevant for the case in hand as the entire issue is based on that. The case is for specific performance of agreement to sell. The defendant has denied execution of agreement to sell. The report of the hand-writing expert will clinch the issue. The delay, if any, can always be compensated with cost. The effort should be to permit the parties to lead evidence in its entirety. Even if there is some lapse on the part of the counsel, the party should not be made to suffer.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book.

It is evident that the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 1.8.1997 was filed in the year 1998. The issues were framed on 24.10.2000. The petitioner-plaintiff closed his evidence on 31.10.2011 i.e. after more than 11 years. The case set up by the defendant in the written statement from the very beginning was that there are material alterations in the document sought to be relied upon by the petitioner in the suit. The application was filed to prove the signatures of the executant of the agreement to sell on the ground that sometimes he used to sign in Punjabi and some times in English. Signatures on the agreement to sell were denied by him. During the period of 11 years availed of by the petitioner/plaintiff for concluding his evidence, he did not think it proper to produce the hand-writing expert, rather, the application was filed only at the fag end after his evidence was closed on 31.10.2011 and the defendant had also concluded his evidence in April, 2012. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.