Harbans Kaur vs Sohan Singh and Others

J.V. Gupta, ACJ

This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated September 19, 1989, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs for comparison of their signatures/thumb impressions with their signatures/thumb-impressions on the sale deed which is under challenge, was declined.

The plaintiff filed the suit for possession alleging that the sale deed said to have been executed on their behalf of in favour of the defendants was a forged one. Earlier one of the plaintiffs appeared in the witness-box and denied her signatures/thumb-impression. After the parties had closed their evidence, the plaintiffs moved an application that they may be allowed to compare their signatures/thumb-impressions with the disputed signatures on the alleged sale deed which prayer has been declined by the impugned order.

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs petitioners submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was a fit case where additional evidence should have been allowed on payment of costs, if any. According to the learned counsel, since the controversy between the parties is as to whether the signatures/thumb-impressions on the alleged scale deed are forged or not, it could only be decided effectively by comparison which evidence according to the learned counsel could not be produced earlier for want of proper guidance by the local counsels.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents submitted that the plaintiffs could not be allowed to re-open the matter again, once the parties had closed their evidence. The burden of proof of the issue was on the plaintiffs which they failed to discharge and now they cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna by way of additional evidence.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the suit, the plaintiffs should have been allowed to get their signatures/thumb impressions compared with the disputed signatures/thumb-impressions on the alleged sale deed on payment of costs because of their negligence and delay in making the application.

Consequently, the petition succeeds. The impugned order is set as le and the plaintiffs are allowed to get their signatures/thumb-impressions compared with the disputed signatures/thumb-impressions on the alleged sale deed on payment of Rs.300/- as costs. Of course, for the said purpose, their signature/thumb impressions will be taken by the Court in order to get the same compared with the disputed signatures/thumb-Impression. The plaintiff will be given an opportunity for producing their expert at their own responsibility. The defendants will also be entitled to one opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal, if any. The parties have been directed to appear in the trial Courts on March 30, 1990. On that date, the costs will be paid and their signatures/thumb-impressions will be taken by the Court. In case the costs are not paid on that date, this petition will stand dismissed.