Praveen Ahuja v. Bhagwan Dass Ahuja

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

1. Applications are allowed for the reasons stated therein.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

1. This application has been made for review of the order dated 23rd September, 2008. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that this Court while allowing the petition of the petitioner for examination of handwriting expert had observed that the comparison of signatures of respondent/defendant should be done with the admitted signatures available on record. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that Hindi signatures of the respondent were not available on record and the respondent made an application before the Trial Court for taking Hindi signatures of the respondent but the Trial Court did not allow the application. The respondent then preferred a Civil Miscellaneous before 2009:DHC:3508 this Court which was withdrawn with liberty to file a Revision Petition of the order dated 23rd September, 2008.

2. This Court in its order dated 23rd September 2008 observed that the petitioner would be free to engage a handwriting expert for examination of documents and comparison with the admitted signatures of the respondent available on record. This observation was made in view of the fact sample signatures of the respondent had already been taken by the Court below.

3. The contention of counsel for the revision petitioner is that Hindi signature or handwriting of the respondent in Hindi was not available on record and therefore this comparison cannot be done.

4. Normally the comparison is only useful with the previously admitted signatures, when a person has no opportunity to change or vary his handwriting or signatures. However, Section 73 of the Evidence Act gives liberty to the Court to obtain writing/signatures of a party for the purpose of comparison where admitted signatures are not available. I consider that the Trial Court should have exercised its discretion under Section 73 of the Evidence Act in order to allow comparison of the Hindi signatures of the respondent with those available on documents. The order dated 23rd September, 2008 is clarified in above terms. The application is disposed of. August 27, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. ak