Krishan Kant alias Minu vs Pawan Kumar and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will also dispose of Civil Revision No. 1722 of 1989 as both these petitions arise out of one suit pending in the trial Court.

Plaintiff tiled a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 18.03.1986. An application under Order 18, Rule 17-A or the CPC for additional evidence was filed by the plaintiff for producing Dewan K.S. Puri, and Satwant Puri Thumb and Finger Prints Experts for getting compared from them the disputed signatures on agreement Exhibit P. 1 and on the written statement and Vakalatnama already on the file. The said application was resisted on behalf of the plaintiff and the trial Court vide its order dated 3.10.1988 dismissed the same, primarily on the ground that in case additional evidence in such cases is allowed than there will be likelihood of prejudice to the other parties and that the case has already become very old.

Meanwhile the defendants led their evidence on Issue No. 9 and the plaintiff in rebuttal thereof took an opportunity to produce the said evidence which they wanted to produce by way of additional evidence. But that request was declined by the trial Court vide its order dated 22-5-1989 against which Civil Revision No. 1722 of 1988 has been filed. The said order has been passed primarily on the grounds that the case is already more than two years old and the plaintiff has already been afforded ample opportunities to conclude his evidence.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that signatures on the agreement were compared with the signatures on the orders of the Court which were not that of the defendant but were of an Ahimad. That being so, there was an error apparent and that is why the plaintiff wanted to produce another Expert to compare the signatures on the agreement of sale with the admitted signatures of the defendant. In any case argued the learned counsel even if the additional evidence as such was not allowed, they were entitled to produce the said evidence in rebuttal of Issue No. 9.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that Issue No. 9 is itself rebuttal of issue No. 1 and, therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to lead any rebuttal to the said issue.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the considered view that the plaintiff be allowed one opportunity to produce the Handwriting Experts at his own responsibility on payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. Both these petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Since further proceedings were stayed at the time of motion hearing, the parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 18th October 1989. On that date, costs will be paid failing which this petition will stand dismissed. In case the costs are paid, the trial Court will fix a date for examining Handwriting Experts to be produced by the plaintiff at his own responsibility.