Kirpal Singh vs Charanjit Kaur and Others

Rajan Gupta, J.—Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.3.2011, passed by the trial court, whereby application of the petitioner for appointment of a fresh Handwriting and Finger Print Expert for the purpose of verification of signatures of plaintiffs on the Vakalatnama, has been dismissed. Mr. Sachdev, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. According to him, in view of two conflicting reports given by the earlier Expert to the rival parties, petitioner was entitled to seek appointment of another handwriting expert. Trial court has erroneously rejected the application.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the plea. According to him, the petitioner earlier approached this court by way of Civil Revision No. 414 of 2011 wherein he was allowed to re-examine Handwriting Expert namely, Fateh Chand Sharma. By now evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order. Thus, no cause of action survives.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

It appears that a suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondents seeking a declaration that decree dated 22.8.2003 be declared null and void. Suit was resisted by the defendant/petitioner contending that decree was rightly passed by the court after contest. Plaintiffs had given duly signed power of attorney and other documents containing their signatures. During the pendency of proceedings an application was moved for examining handwriting expert. One Fateh Chand Sharma appeared as a witness. However, testimony of said witness was questioned by the petitioner on the ground that he had given conflicting report to rival parties. He, thus, moved an application for declaring the said witness hostile. On the application being rejected, Civil Revision No. 414 of 2011 was preferred before this court. Same was disposed of on January 20, 2011, operative part whereof read as under:-

The witness, examined by the petitioner, proved report Ex. DW-4/1 in favour of the defendants, whereas when he was cross-examined, the said witness also admitted that he had given report Ex. DW4/X giving a contrary opinion. In these circumstances, petitioner could have re-examined the said witness. The petitioner would be at liberty to re-examine the witness after his cross-examination is complete but the said witness could not have been declared hostile.

Dismissed.

During the pendency of the instant petition, evidence of the petitioner was closed by order. The prayer made by the petitioner is that he should be allowed to examine another handwriting expert in support of his plea. I do not find any merit in this contention. The grievance of the petitioner was redressed by order dated January 20, 2011 whereby he was allowed to re-examine the witness Fateh Chand Sharma. The evidence already on record can be considered by the court at the stage of final arguments. Under the circumstances, no interference in revisional jurisdiction is called for. Dismissed.