Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1734 (PNJ)

Ramo Bai v. Vidya Rani

2011-09-13

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2011
JUDGMENT AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.11.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioners for taking specimen signatures and handwriting of the witness, namely Ram Lubhaya, Advocate for expert opinion. 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that Hardial Ram, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 4 executed a Will on 7.6.1997 in favour of the petitioners in equal shares which was scribed by Ram Lubhaya Kamboj, Advocate and witnessed by Bula Ram Lambardar as well as Des Raj. After the death of Hardial Ram, the petitioners filed a suit for declaration claiming the ownership of the land in question on the basis of said Will. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application for leading secondary evidence. The said application was allowed by the trial court and the petitioners were permitted to lead secondary evidence qua the Will dated 7.6.1997. An affidavit dated 26.9.2005 by way of examination-in-chief of witness Ram Lubhaya, Advocate was tendered in the Court wherein he had admitted that the Will in question was scribed by him at the instance of Hardial Ram. The witness also admitted his signatures on the photo copy of the Will. During the course of cross-examination of the said witness, counsel for the petitioners stated that as the witness is concealing the truth, therefore, the petitioners be permitted to cross-examine the witness. Vide order dated 1.8.2009, the petitioners were permitted to cross-examine Ram Lubhaya, Advocate. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application dated 8.9.2009 for taking specimen signatures and handwriting of the scribe of the Will, namely, Ram Lubhaya, Advocate for comparison from the handwriting expert. The trial court vide order dated 20.11.2009 dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was essential to take the specimen signatures and handwriting of Ram Lubhaya, Advocate who had scribed the Will in order to prove the execution of the Will. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was essential to take the specimen signatures and handwriting of Ram Lubhaya, Advocate who had scribed the Will in order to prove the execution of the Will. According to the learned counsel, the necessity arose as he had after having initially accepted that he had scribed the Will had taken a somersault and turned hostile to depose in the negative regarding the execution of the Will. The Will was photo copy but it was hand written and signed by Ram Lubhaya. 5. Controverting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the right to lead evidence by way of examining an expert to compare the specimen signatures and handwriting of a witness from the photo copy of a document cannot be allowed and had been rightly declined by the trial court. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in Surjit Rai v. Prem Kumar and others, 1995 (2) PLR 140 and Karnail Singh v. M/s Kalra Brothers, 2009(4) CCC 110. 6. After carefully considering the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 7. The plaintiff-petitioners admittedly had not produced the original Will dated 7.6.1997 allegedly executed by Hardial Ram which was said to be scribed by Ram Lubhaya Kamboj, Advocate. In the absence of original Will, it would not be legally justified to allow the plaintiff-petitioners for comparison of signatures and handwriting of Ram Lubhaya Kamboj, Advocate on the photo copy of the Will. The said comparison cannot constitute an authentic proof of execution of Will especially in these days of computerization when signatures of a person can be lifted from one place and put at another place by superimposition. Equally, in the absence of original document available for comparison of handwriting, it would be dangerous to allow such comparison from photo copy of the document. 8. This Court in Surjit Rai's case (supra) while examining whether handwriting expert could be allowed to depose with regard to the comparison of signatures from a photo copy of the agreement has noticed as under:- “Original agreement has not been produced on the record. 8. This Court in Surjit Rai's case (supra) while examining whether handwriting expert could be allowed to depose with regard to the comparison of signatures from a photo copy of the agreement has noticed as under:- “Original agreement has not been produced on the record. In my view, signatures cannot be compared from the photo copy of the agreement because in these days of advance technology, signatures of a person can be lifted from one document and put on another document by super imposition.” 9. Following the aforesaid decision in Karnail Singh's case (supra), this Court had concluded as under:- “Even the signatures of the appellant on the photostat copies could not have been examined as was done by the respondent by producing a handwriting expert in Sh. Surjit Rai's case (supra), a learned Single Judge has held as under:- “... In my view, signatures cannot be compared from the photocopy of the agreement because in these days of advance technology, signatures of a person can be lifted from one document and put on another document by super imposition.” 10. In view of the above, no infirmity or illegality could be found in the impugned order 20.11.2009 passed by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.