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