Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 15 (PNJ)

Gurpal Singh v. Gurmej Singh

2018-01-08

HARI PAL VERMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J.:- This petitioner has filed present civil revision petition underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 01.12.2017(Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar,whereby the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 45/73of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to examine the handwriting expert for thepurpose of comparison of his signatures appended on the alleged Will dated22.07.2005, was allowed. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit against thepetitioner-defendant for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner inpossession of the property, as detailed in the plaint, and the alleged Will dated22.07.2005 executed by Hazara Singh son of Maghar Singh in favour of thepetitioner-defendant is illegal, as the same is result of fraud,misrepresentation, impersonation and concoction and, therefore, the said Willhas no binding effect on the rights of the respondent-plaintiff. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent-plaintiff filed anapplication under Section 45/73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to examinea fingerprint/handwriting expert so as to compare his signatures with thesignatures appended on the Will dated 22.07.2005. 4. Vide impugned order dated 01.12.2017 (Annexure P-6), learnedcivil Court has allowed the said application. 5. It is against the said order, the petitioner-defendant has filedpresent civil revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has argued that videimpugned order dated 01.12.2017, the civil Court has wrongly granted anopportunity to the respondent-plaintiff to examine a handwriting expert.Moreover, such permission has been granted at a very belated stage which hascaused prejudice to the petitioner. In case the respondent-plaintiff is allowedto examine a handwriting expert, it will cause an irreparable loss to thepetitioner which cannot be compensated in any manner. 7. He has further argued that it is at the stage when the respondent-plaintiffhad already closed his evidence vide his statement, the presentapplication under Section 45/73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 forcomparison of signatures has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff at a muchbelated stage. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant. 9. In the suit, the respondent-plaintiff has also impugned the allegedWill dated 22.07.2005 executed by Hazara Singh son of Maghar Singh. Asper the said Will dated 22.07.2005, the respondent-plaintiff is a witness of theWill, whereas the case of the plaintiff is that he has never witnessed the saidWill. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant. 9. In the suit, the respondent-plaintiff has also impugned the allegedWill dated 22.07.2005 executed by Hazara Singh son of Maghar Singh. Asper the said Will dated 22.07.2005, the respondent-plaintiff is a witness of theWill, whereas the case of the plaintiff is that he has never witnessed the saidWill. Even otherwise, the name of the plaintiff is Gurmej Singh, but on thealleged Will, it has been mentioned as ‘Gaje Singh’ and it is in thesecircumstances, the aforesaid application has been filed by the respondentplaintifffor comparison of his signatures. The suit for declaration has beenfiled by the plaintiff claiming himself to be owner in possession of the suitproperty. The plaintiff has claimed that he has never signed the alleged Willdated 22.07.2005 as a witness and the signatures appended on the said Will asGaje Singh have not been made by him. The plaintiff used to sign as GurmejSingh, but as the evidence with regard to execution of the alleged Will wasyet to be led by the petitioner-defendant during his evidence, the contention ofthe counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-plaintiff cannot examinehandwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence, cannot be accepted.The respondent-plaintiff has every right to prove his case that he has neversigned the alleged Will dated 22.07.2005 as a witness and he can certainlyprove this fact with the help of a handwriting expert. Therefore, this Courtdoes not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 passed bylearned civil Court. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 (AnnexureP-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar is affirmedand the instant civil revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 11. It is, however, made clear that the observations madehereinabove shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the suit.