Author name: admin

Punjab-Haryana High Court Jasvir Singh And Ors vs M/S Hukam Chand Subhash Chander … on 31 October, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3777-2011 (O&M)                 Date of Decision: 31.10.2014 Jasvir Singh and others                       ….. Appellants                          Versus M/s Hukam Chand Subhash Chander Sood and others                                               …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P NAGRATH Before that the plaintiff-firm examined its own hand-writing expert, namely; Anil Kumar Gupta (PW-2), who compared that signatures of Avtar Singh on different entries with his standard signatures and it was found that the disputed signatures of Avtar Singh marked as Q6 to Q14 and standard signatures of Avtar Singh marked as S1 and S2 are similar in their writing characteristics and have been written by one and the same person.  In order to substantiate their plea they have examined  Finger and Handwriting Expert, who while stepping into the witness box as DW-1 submitted her report Ex. DW1/1. She has testified that entries in the bahies of plaintiff are fraudulent one. However, in the cross-examination she has totally shattered the case of defendant no. 3. She has admitted that entries are genuine one. She further adds that age and time of writing or ink cannot be determined by any technique. She has also stated that she did not examine the writing characteristic of the digit of the entry at mark Q-1 to Q-15 in this case. She has admitted to be correct that some of the entries examined by her are genuine according to her report. Re-touching and alteration or addition can be genuine RISHU KATARIA 2014.11.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-3777-2011 (O&M) -11- as well as fraudulent and this depends upon the matter in hand. She has further stated that there is no fraudulent addition or alteration on the entry dated 23.5.1998, 19.8.1998, 15.9.1998, 5.11.1998, 16.11.1998, 30.6.1998 and 5.6.1998. She has also categorically admitted that is there is any addition on the right side, then there must be some addition or alteration on sum total present on the left side in the entries of bahi khata to make the balance correct. There is a firm finding of fact by both the Courts below and the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show that either there is misreading of evidence or that the material available with the Courts below was ignored. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is without merit and thus dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Manjit Kaur @ Taro vs Jagtar Singh on 3 May, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1665 of 2012(O&M)           Date of Decision:-03.05.2012 Manjit Kaur @ Taro.                         ……Appellant.                                    Versus Jagtar Singh.                               ……Respondent. CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:-   Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.                                 *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Plaintiff had further examined Anil Kumar Gupta (Handwriting and Finger Print Expert) who had proved on record his report Ex.PW-3/1 whereby it was mentioned that the thumb impression on the agreement to sell were of the defendant. In this scenario, I have no hesitation in holding that the agreement to sell is proved on record by the plaintiff and thus the onus had shifted upon defendant/appellant to prove the fact that the agreement to sell was not RSA No.1665 of 2012(O&M) #4# executed by him. This fact is further proved from the circumstance that in rebuttal to the report of the handwriting expert examined by the plaintiff, no handwriting expert has been examined by the defendant so as to prove the fact that the thumb impression did not belong to him. Hence, it can be safely presumed that the agreement to sell was executed by the defendant after fully knowing the contents of the same.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Santosh vs Vinod Kumar And Others on 3 December, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2013 Date of Decision: 03.12.2013 Santosh                                   ….Appellant                              versus Vinod Kumar and others                     ….Respondents CORAM:        HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA               HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH he prosecutrix has been confronted with her letters written to accused-Vinod, which carry expression of emotional ties and love relationship and the handwriting and finger print expert DW4 Anil Kumar Gupta has proved her writings which were compared with her standard writing and signatures, are matter which have their own affect The learned trial Court had given a well reasoned finding and has fully discussed the evidence brought on the record. We are, thus, not inclined to show any indulgence in granting leave to appeal and which as such is declined. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) Judge (Fateh Deep Singh) Judge 03.12.2013 neenu Verma Neenu 2013.12.09 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Punjab-Haryana High Court Harbans Kaur And Anr vs Atma Singh And Ors on 28 October, 2014 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh                                                        R.S.A.No.2670 of 2012              Date of decision: 28.10.2014 Harbans Kaur and another                        ……Appellants                              Versus Atma Singh and others                         …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH  P-5 Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and finger print expert also deposed in confirmation of due execution of Will as the disputed thumb impressions marked Q-1 to Q-3 were found identical with thumb impressions of Bhag Singh marked S-1 and S-2 being affixed by one and the same person. Similarly, he has also given the information that the disputed thumb impression mark S-1 and standard thumb impressions of Hazara Singh mark H-1 and H-2 are proved to be affixed by one and the same person. The witness has also given an information that the disputed signatures mark D-1 and D-2 and standard signatures of Jarnail Singh mark A-1 to A-3 are also similar in their writing characteristics and have been written by ANITA DEVI one and the same person. Since the plaintiff is not found to be in possession though, he has been declared to be owner as such, therefore, the plaintiff is held entitled to possession qua his share in the capacity of co-sharer and the defendants have been rightly restrained from creating any charge over the property in any manner. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is found to be meritless. No substantial question of law is involved for consideration of this Court. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed. (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE October 28, 2014 anita ANITA DEVI 2014.11.19 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Punjab-Haryana High Court Bhola Singh vs Leela Ram on 16 August, 2017 Civil Revision No.2113 of 2016                              1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH                               Civil Revision No.2113 of 2016                               Date of Decision: 16.08.2017 BHOLA SINGH                           ……Petitioner        Vs LEELA RAM                               ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH  On one hand judgment-debtor has examined himself as AW-1 and one Jagdeep Singh as AW-2 in support of his case. The decree-holder has examined himself as DH-1 and one Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert as DH-2. The expert has opined that the signatures appearing on the alleged compromise are not that of the decree-holder. The executing Court has doubted the genuineness of the compromise in view of the fact that though the same was allegedly recorded during pendency of the execution, but still the same was not executed before the Court. [4]. In view of attending circumstances, I find no reason to differ with the observations made by the trial Court. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Amrik Singh vs M/S Hind Iron Store on 20 September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2592 of 2010 (O&M)           Date of decision : 20.9.2011                              … Amrik Singh                            …………….Appellant                               vs. M/s Hind Iron Store                  ……………..Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri The plaintiff in order to prove his case, appeared as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 Anil Kumar Gupta, Finger Print and Handwriting Expert. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the case file. The sole controversy in the present lis revolves around the receipt of 250 bags of cement by defendant-appellant and issuance of receipt by the defendant. To prove the said fact, plaintiff has appeared as his own witness and he also examined hand writing expert. The bill Exhibit P-1 alongwith entries in the accounts book Exhibits P-3 and P-4 have been placed on the file. Besides this, notice Exhibit P-5, postal receipt Exhibit P-6 and acknowledgment Exhibit P-7 have been placed on the file. In rebuttal, the defendant-appellant has suffered a self serving statement and has not led any evidence. Both the Courts below gave a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has been able to prove that 250 bags of cement were supplied to the defendant under the bill Exhibit P-1, which was acknowledged vide receipt Exhibit P-2. The plaintiff has also proved the said fact by proving the account books. The legal notice was served upon the defendant, which was duly received as per acknowledgment Exhibit P-7. No reply has been sent. So, in these circumstances, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below regarding the execution of the receipt Exhibit P-2 and supplying the bags of cement does not call for any interference. The appellant has simply challenged the factual aspect in the regular second appeal and that cannot be allowed in view of Section 100 CPC. Both the Courts below have discussed each and every aspect of the case argued before them. There is nothing on the file that judgments of both the Courts below is a result of mis- reading and mis-interpreting of evidence on the file. In view of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant stands determined against him. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Ranjeet Kumar Alias Ranjeet Singh vs Arya Samaj on 7 September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6773 of 2009 (O&M)              Date of decision: 7.9.2011 Ranjeet Kumar alias Ranjeet Singh   …..Petitioner(s) Versus AryaSamaj,Jaitu                      ……Respondent(s) CR No.7831 of 2009 (O&M) CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG He also deposed regarding the same documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A17, as proved by AW(1) Raj Paul Dod. Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert was examined as AW(3), who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.AW(3)/A. He also proved his report Ex.AW (3)/1 and negatives Ex.AW(3)/2 to Ex.AW(3)/11. He deposed that he examined and compared the disputed signatures alleged to be of Ranjeet Kumar appearing at mark Q1 on the writing dated 14.06.1995 and at mark Q2 on the rent receipt dated 17.01.1998, at mark Q3 on the rent receipt dated 24.4.1998, at mark Q4 on the rent receipt dated 15.6.1998, at mark Q5 on the rent receipt dated 21.7.1998 at mark Q6 on the rent receipt dated 15.9.1998, at mark Q7 on the rent receipt dated 12.1.1999 and at mark Q8 on the rent receipt dated 7.5.1999 with the standard signatures of Ranjeet Kumar appearing at mark R1 on the Vakalatnama and mark R2 on the service of the summons. In his opinion, the disputed signatures marks Q1 to Q8 and standard signatures of Ranjeet Kumar mark R1 and R2 are similar in their writing characteristics and have been written by one and the same person. Even before this Court, the respondent has produced the original carbon copies/counter foils of the said receipts. Therefore, no exception can be taken regarding the admissibility of these receipts before this Court. In view of the said findings, judgments in Charan Singh’s case (supra) and Karnail Singh’ case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him. No other point is urged. No merits. Both the revision petitions are dismissed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.                                                                 CM No.2006-C of 2014 in/and                                                                  RSA No.3821 of 2012 (O&M)                                                                   Date of decision: 17.02.2014 Bhola Singh                               —–Appellant(s)                              Vs. Leela Ram                                 —–Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG The testimony of DW-1 could inspire confidence, if the same would have been corroborated by other evidence. At least, he should have examined some finger print expert to rebut the testimony of PW-4 Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and Finger Print Expert. If the plaintiff had obtained his signatures fraudulently on the agreement Ex.P1, in that event, it was required for the defendant to report the matter to the police, but he had not done so. His complacence and tacitness in this regard would candidly prove the execution of agreement Ex.P1 and receipt of imprest of Rs.1,25,000/- by the appellant from the respondent. So, the learned trial Court has rightly held that agreement to sell dated 4.1.2008 has been proved on record. Even otherwise, the stand taken by the appellant is not proved, as the agreement dated 4.1.2008 bears his signatures, whereas his own case is that the plaintiff had taken his thumb impression. Even PW-4 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert has proved his report, according to which, the disputed signatures of the appellant on the agreement in question tally with his standard signatures. Not only this, the appellant has even denied his signatures on the vakalatnama and the written statement. Thus, the conduct of the appellant itself shows his intentions. The findings have been recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence and are duly supported from the evidence on record.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Gurmeet Singh vs Satgur Singh And Others on 17 September, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH                                                                             C.R.No.5628 of 2013         Date of Decision: September 17, 2013 GurmeetSingh                                … Petitioner                                                              Versus Satguru Singh and Others                   … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH I have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioner – defendants have closed their evidence and have also examined Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as DW1. Respondent No.1-plaintiff want to examine Kumar Virender 2013.09.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Sh. Navdeep Gupta, Finger Print and Handwriting Expert in rebuttal evidence. The trial Court has observed that plaintiff has every right to rebut the defendants’ evidence on the issue onus of proof of which is on the defendant. Therefore, objections to the examination of expert witness are misconceived.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Bakkar Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 4 September, 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRR 1957/2015(O&M)                   Date of decision:04.09.2015 Bakar Singh and others         ………………….Petitioners                                    vs State of Punjab               ……………………Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH As regards comparison of disputed signatures with the standard specimen signatures, Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert while appearing as PW4 proved the fact of comparing the same and submission of his detailed report as Ex.PW4/2. He also proved photocopy of agreement, questioned signatures and thumb impressions as well as standard/specimen signatures and thumb impressions, as detailed in his reports. This witness,too was cross examined but nothing could be extracted either to shatter his evidence or his reports to prove that he had given a wrong report causing prejudice to the rights of the petitioners.