For obtaining specimen signature of a witness who denies his signatures on the document, the proper stage is when he denies his signatures.  2006 (4) RCR 713 (P & H)

Punjab-Haryana High Court Smt. Kashmir Kaur vs Smt. Bachan Kaur And Anr. on 18 November, 1999 Equivalent citations: (2000) 124 PLR 606 Author: V Bali Bench: V Bali JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. 1. Challenge herein is to an order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge declining the prayer of the petitioner who happens to be a plaintiff in the main lis to adduce additional evidence by way of producing a handwriting expert. 2. Before the contentions of the learned counsel representing the parties for and against are noticed, it will be useful to extract, even though in brief, facts culminating into filing of the present petition. 3. Petitioner herein, namely Kashmir Kaur happens to be young widow of Balbir Singh. The husband of the petitioner died on 15.5.1991 when the petitioner was only 23 years of age. An unsavoury dispute immediately on demise of Balbir Singh came into offing when none other than the mother-in-law of the plaintiff resisted inheritance of the estate left by Balbir Singh to the petitioner. This led to the filing of the civil suit by the petitioner who propounded a Will. It was stated that the husband had executed a Will and the petitioner would succeed to the entire estate-left by Balbir Singh. This suit was resisted by the respondent-mother-in-law who naturally challenged the due execution and validity of the Will. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties, thus, framed an all important issue; “Whether Balbir Singh executed a Will dated 6.2.1991 in favour of plaintiff Kashmir Kaur? OPP. 4. In her endeavor to discharge the onus of issue referred to above, the petitioner examined two witnesses; one scribe and one attesting witness of the Will. Sufficient evidence having been led with regard to due executing and validity of the Will, naturally, onus shifted to the respondent to rebut the said evidence. An application was made before the trial Court to examine a handwriting expert to determine as to whether the signatures of the testator appended on the Will were genuine. The said application was allowed and the handwriting expert was examined on behalf of the respondent mother-in-law. It is at this stage that the present application was filed for producing additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure permitting the petitioner also to examine the hand-writing expert, obviously with a view to show that the signatures appended on the Will by the testator were genuine. As mentioned above, it is this application of the petitioner which has been dismissed and it is the said order which has been impugned in the present petition. 5. Before I might determine the controversy in light of the contentions raised by the learned counsel representing the parties, it will be useful to mention that civil matters are decided on preponderance of evidence and the onus of an issue, be it initially placed on one party or the other, keeps on shifting during the currency of the trial. In a given case like the present, where onus of issue regarding execution and validity of the Will was on the plaintiff i.e., petitioner herein, it was discharged by examining the scribe and one of the attesting witnesses of the Will. The petitioner, in fact, endeavoured to discharge the onus placed on her by examining independent witnesses. In rebuttal, as mentioned above the respondent chose to examine the handwriting expert with a view to show that the signatures of Balbir Singh appended on the Will were not genuine. It is too well settled that execution and validity of a Will is proved by direct evidence i.e. by examining scribe and witnesses of the concerned document and that evidence of an expert, in the present case, evidence of Handwriting Expert, is only an opinion and, therefore, it may not be absolutely essential for a party to examine a handwriting expert in the first instance i.e. at the time of examining evidence in affirmative. However, the moment respondent examined the handwriting expert, petitioner could well take it that the onus again shifted on her to rebut the said evidence. In these circumstances, it was perhaps not a case which may strictly fall under the leading of additional evidence. The petitioner having closed her evidence in affirmative on the issue, referred to above, could well be permitted to examine the evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the respondent on the said issue. This Court is, thus, of the firm view that if asked for, the Court might have given permission to examine the handwriting expert, even though relating to an issue, onus whereof was initially to be discharged by the petitioner. It is in this background that it has been observed earlier that onus to prove an issue keeps on shifting throughout the trial. The Court is, thus, of the view that the petitioner is entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right and if, in this endeavor an application for additional evidence was made, the same ought to have been considered to achieve the same purpose and thus, ought to have been allowed. 6. The view that has been taken by this Court in the matter otherwise also appears to be in consonance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure as well. Order 18 deals with examination of witnesses. By virtue of Rule 1 of Order 18, plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by him. As per rule 2 of Order 18, on the day fixed for hearing of the suit or any other day to which the hearing is adjourned, the party having the right to begin has to state his case and produce evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. Rule 2 of Order 18 further provides that the other party can then state his case and produce his evidence and may then address the Court generally on the whole case. By

Handwriting! A simple procedure, a simple activity, sometimes of our daily routine, while sometimes once a while. But still, if you talk to writers, about handwriting, they will tell you about its importance. They will tell you how it feels like to see the beauty of pearl-like written alphabets. But wait, is it only the writers who know the importance of handwriting, or there is something that can even lead anyone to the courtroom! Yes. Handwriting is just not anything, anyone can come across, but it is some things that can lead to various criminal activities as well. People today are very well aware of the term called “Identity theft”. It is nothing but one of the games a criminal can play by imitating your handwritten signatures. What could be the possible handwritten documents: Here lies the importance of a handwriting expert, that can pick up the culprit amongst millions and help the victim get justice. Might be that is why the Constitution of India had made handwriting and signature forgery a serious criminal offense. There are many sections and acts in the Indian Constitution that deal with different types of forgery and handwriting or signature crime. This type of crime comes under Forgery, which includes, imitating someone else’s name or signature on a cheque, or any legal document like historical papers, Identification cards, certificates, licenses, etc. As per the Forgery Law in India, Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, any person if found guilty in the case of forgery can be sentenced up to the jail term of 2 years, or fine, or both. But how to know whether forgery has happened or not? Special in the case of handwriting or as simple as the signature? The answer is “Handwriting Expert”. Handwriting Experts in any city or the Handwriting expert in Mumbai are those experts who read the handwriting or signatures very deeply to investigate whether forgery is done or not? Studying handwriting or signature is a complex procedure, where only veteran handwriting experts can conclude the basis of their experience. It is a subjective investigation and follows a long procedure. Also, the Section 67-78A of Evidence Act 1872, of India Code, deals with the proof of Signature and handwriting of a person. By now it must be clear how important is handwriting and signature when it comes to legitimacy. There are separate legal actions regarding everything. Therefore, Forensic Science is highly involved in cases, where justice depends solely on handwriting and signatures. Now, sometimes signature can be digital. What happens in that case? Here there are cyber laws regarding that also. But in normal cases, forensic services are highly recommended when handwriting can solve a case up to a crucial level. The Handwriting expert in Mumbai says that Handwriting can even tell a person’s behavior. When there is so much to do with handwriting, there needs to hire some experts as well that can deal with any handwriting and can come up with a single individual amongst the millions. Anil Gupta Forensic Services is the best company if you are searching for a Handwriting expert in Mumbai. Not to mention, but nowadays, people run so much after money that the criminal mindset is highly pampered, which gives rise to crime every other day. Metro cities are not behind in these cases. Rather they are the prominent locations for such forgery cases. After providing its professional services in Delhi, the company is all set to solve the forgery cases in Mumbai. Envisioning the forgery-free India, the founder of the company, came forward to give the private forensic services to serve the nation and bring justice to the people, which otherwise had to wait for a long time or have to sit quietly and lose all the hope of justice. Anil Gupta Forensic Services are here for services these people and find the main culprit through the best Handwriting expert in Mumbai. The company was incorporated to help people get justice, because many cases in India, are the cause of handwriting and signature forging. In these cases, finding the culprit is as difficult as finding a needle in the haystack. At this time normally the victim becomes hopeless. Here stands the role of a Handwriting expert in Mumbai provided by Anil Gupta Forensic Services, to catch the real culprit based on just handwriting and example as small as a signature. The services of the company encompass: The Handwriting expert in Mumbai provided by Anil Gupta Forensic Services is intelligent in studying handwriting and its characteristics, as per the class and the individuals. They know how the formation of every letter matters a lot. They know the factors that can affect handwriting and even the contribution of spaces in handwriting. All these factors matter a lot.

Para 2 of Sec.72 of Indian Evidence act say, “the court may direct any person, present in court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the words or figures so written with any word or figures alleged to have been written by such person.             This section applies also, with any necessary modification, to finger impression.             (For Discussaion as to whether the finger impressions include thumb impression- Gazettee of India 1898 – page 24)             The court an direct the person present in court for the specimen, if the person is party or the witness to case. AIR 1980 SC.791 State of U.P Vs Ram Babu Cr. L.J. 1988-1000 (Ker)             The provision of Sec.73 & 456 (R-1) CPC court can direct a party to be present in court to give the specimen handwriting, signature or thumb impression for the purpose of comparison. 1976 Cr.L.J (Civ) 447 ( P & H) 1976 Rev L.R 648 (DB) AIR 1975. Andh 88

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA- 374 of 2016(O&M)                                                                  Date of Decision:17.9.2018 Surjit Kaur (since deceased) through her LRs                                  —Appellant vs. Sukhdev Singh and others                                                                 — Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal the respondents examined Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert to prove on the basis of comparison that Will bears thumb impressions of Bhola Singh and the same tally with thumb impressions of Bhola Singh on gift deed Ex. D2, written statement and statement of Bhola Singh in civil suit No. 150 dated 24.3.1972. Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out if testimonies of aforesaid witnesses are not worthy of credence and reliance or the same are not sufficient to prove the Will in consonance with the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no counter to testimony of handwriting expert that the Will is thumb marked by Sh. Bhola Singh. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. As the appeal has been decided on merits, applications for condonation of delay of 109 days in refiling and 12 days in filing the appeal are of academic relevance.

IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3044 of 2008                                                            Date of decision: 14.1.2010  Mohinder Kaur and another                                                                          …..Appellants  vs. Kanwal Singh and others.                                                                        …..Respondents  CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. — Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J In order to establish this fact they got thumb mark on the statement in the above said civil suit compared with specimen thumb impressions from Shri Anil Kumar Gupta handwriting and finger print expert. He stepped into the witness box as PW5 and gave his detailed report Ex.PW5/C alongwith photographic charge. As per this report the disputed thumb impressions could not be compared with the specimen thumb impression because the disputed thumb impressions were unfit for comparison. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants was unable to controvert any of the aforesaid finding recorded by the lower appellate Court. Thus, I find no fault with the aforesaid finding of the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed.

RSA No.2295 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on January 22,2010. Harbans Lal – Appellant vs. Gurdev Singh –Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN In order to substantiate his case, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and after tendering some documents closed his evidence. On the other hand, defendant examined Harinder Kalia, Deed Writer as DW-1, Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert as DW-2, himself appeared in the witness box as DW-3 and closed his evidence. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs

Gian Chand v. Baldev Raj, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 129271 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before :- Hemant Gupta, J. Regular Second Appeal No. 2867 of 2005. D/d. 23.2.2007 GianChand – Appellant Versus Baldev Raj – Respondent Civil Procedure Code – Money suit – An agriculturist getting loan from commission agent (plaintiff) – Plaintiff filing suit for recovery of the loan amount – Suit decreed – Plaintiff is not entitled to pre-suit interest as it is not a commercial transaction.                 Plaintiff  Baldev Raj has examined himself as PW1 and proved the transactions between the parties. PW3 Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting Expert, has compared the disputed signatures of the defendant on the bahi entries including that of Exhibits P-13 to P-15. Therefore, it is not the bahi entries alone which have been taken into consideration. Such evidence has been taken as corroborative evidence between the parties. In view of the above, the impugned decree passed by the Courts below is modified. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the recovery of Rs. 63,477.06 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the sum of Rs. 53,072.06 from the date of filing of suit till realisation of decretal amount. 9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

The court acted as an expert by comparing the signatures itself without the devices which are available to a handwriting expert, besides the lack of knowledge of the subject, which the handwriting expert possesses, is going beyond the ordinary limits of the capacity of the court. AIR 1960 And. Pd 359             The original document should not be sent outside court. It is desirable that the expert examine the document in the court and submit his report. 2005 (2) LJR – 475 (mad)

The decision by the court based up on comparison by it specially without the aid of enlarged photographs or any expert advice – is dangerous. Shriniwas Pansari vs. Dr.Hari Parshad AIR 1983 Patna 321