Punjab & Haryana HC allows handwriting expert to be examined at rebuttal stage, since very lis was of denial of signatures/execution of agreement in question

Read Order: Satya Narayan Sharma v. Rakesh Aggarwal And Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, February 4, 2022: In a revision petition challenging the Trial Court’s order disallowing examining handwriting expert at the rebuttal stage, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has opined that though the plaintiff ought to have, in the ordinary course, examined the hand-writing expert in his affirmative evidence, however, since the very lis is the denial of signatures/ execution of the agreement in question, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that expert opinion is sought even at this stage of rebuttal evidence.

Further, substantiating the above finding with the settled position of law, the Bench of Justice Arun Monga added, “Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice and cannot be allowed to thwart real and substantial justice between the parties.”

The Court was called upon to decide a revision petition impugning the order of the Court below in the pending trial in a Civil Suit whereby, the application moved by the plaintiff /petitioner for examining fingerprint and handwriting expert in rebuttal was dismissed. 

It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with the first respondent who was in possession of the suit property by an agreement to sell with the second respondent. It was submitted that the first respondent, being the General Power of Attorney holder of the second respondent, was competent to hand over the possession to the petitioner by receiving full and final payment. It was also argued that even after paying the earnest money by the petitioner, the sale deed was not executed in his favour. He alleged that the second respondent took a U-turn and denied execution of an Agreement to Sale, GPA and Possession letter in favour of the first respondent. 

Thus, the petitioner moved an application before the trial Court seeking comparison of the second respondent’s (defendant) signature but the same was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence. The Counsel also urged that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner was permitted one opportunity to examine the handwriting expert. 

While holding that given the nature of the order passed, there was no necessity to issue notice to the respondents as no prejudice would be caused to them, the Court observed that what weighed with the court below was the likely delay that would be caused in the trial and the stage at which permission to examine the expert was asked by the plaintiff. But, the Court opined that it was the petitioner’s suit and the delay in the trial was to be caused at his (petitioner’s) own peril.  

Thus, the revision petition was allowed, subject to payment of cost by the petitioner.