Naresh Kumar vs Hari Singh And Others on 13 November, 2009

Civil Revision No. 6639 of 2009 (O&M)                             1



       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                          Civil Revision No. 6639 of 2009 (O&M)
                          Date of decision: 13.11.2009

Naresh Kumar
                                                       ......petitioner

                          Versus


Hari Singh and others
                                                     .......Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA


Present:      Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate.
              for the petitioner.

                   ****

SABINA, J.

Plaintiff-respondent No.1 Hari Singh filed a suit for

rendition of account and for dissolution of the firm. The petitioner,

after closing his evidence, filed an application for permission to get

the signatures of the plaintiff compared on the agreement. Vide the

impugned order dated 27.10.2009, the said application was

dismissed by the trial Court, Hence, the present revision petition has

been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in

case the petitioner is not allowed to get the signatures of the plaintiff
Civil Revision No. 6639 of 2009 (O&M) 2

compared on the agreement, the petitioner would suffer an

irreparable loss.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of

the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and

deserves dismissal.

The petitioner had made a reference of the agreement

dated 6.5.2003 in the written statement filed by him. When the

plaintiff appeared in the witness box, he denied the execution of the

agreement Ex.D-3. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court

rightly held that the defendant was aware of the fact that the plaintiff

had denied his signatures on agreement Ex.D-3 and should have got

the same compared from an handwriting and finger print expert, while

leading his evidence. Now the petitioner has closed his evidence

voluntarily on 2.4.1999. The petitioner had failed to establish that

despite due diligence he could not examine the handwriting and

finger print expert, while he was leading his evidence.

Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any

material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this

Court.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(SABINA)
JUDGE
November 13, 2009
anita