Dismissed

Saroj Devi v. Matadin

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Oct 2009CR/6080/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special criminal revision, this court upheld a trial court order directing a petitioner-defendant to provide specimen thumb impressions for comparison with those on disputed sale agreements. The court held the order was valid under inherent jurisdiction and fair to the administration of justice despite the deletion of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the trial court's order directing the petitioner to give thumb impressions was upheld.

Saroj Devi Vs Matadin — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.R.No.6080 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.R.No.6080 of 2009. Decided on: October 22, 2009.

Saroj Devi

.. Petitioner

VERSUS

Matadin

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

¶11

PRESENT Mr.R.S.Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Petitioner is a defendant in a suit for specific performance of agreements dated 06.03.1995 and 30.05.1995. She has denied her thumb impression on the above said agreements on an earlier occasion but trial Court had directed her to furnish her specimen thumb impressions to be compared with the thumb impressions existing on the agreements without their being any application with such prayer. The order was set aside by High Court vide order dated 06.08.2009. However, a liberty was given to the plaintiff-respondent to file an application for additional evidence, if deemed appropriate. As the right to file an application for additional

¶14

. . . 1

¶15

C.R.No.6080 of 2009

¶16

evidence was safeguarded, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application for additional evidence. The trial Court exercising inherent jurisdiction has allowed the application and directed the defendant-petitioner to appear in the court for giving her thumb impressions of both hands so that same may be compared with the thumb impressions affixed over the relevant papers and pleadings.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plaintiff has already concluded his evidence in affirmative as such, he cannot be directed to lead evidence in rebuttal at a subsequent stage in the garb of application for additional evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on an earlier occasion also the thumb impressions have been given by the defendant-petitioner for comparison.

¶18

I have heard the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent from the record that defendantpetitioner in her evidence has brought expert report for substantiating her stand that her thumb impression does not exist on the agreements dated 06.03.1995 and 30.05.1995. The plaintiff had moved an application for taking the specimen thumb impressions of defendant which application was allowed but this Court, on technical grounds, had set aside the order giving liberty to the plaintiffrespondent to move a formal application for additional evidence. It is the said application which has been allowed. No doubt the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC, for additional evidence have been deleted in the recent amendments of year 2002, but the authoritiy of

¶19

. . . 2

¶20

C.R.No.6080 of 2009

¶21

a Court to call for any evidence deemed essential for the just and appropriate decision of the case, has not been debarred. The rules are hand-maidens of administration of justice. Making a reference to the issues framed in the present case, whether the defendant executed an agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff on 30.05.1995, is to be proved by the plaintiff. In order to rebut the same the defendant has placed on record, the report of an expert. In view of the said circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent will have to establish that the thumb impression existing on the agreements belong to defendantpetitioner. The trial Court in order to ascertain the truth and to arrive at just conclusion pertaining to the agreements, in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in it, has directed the defendant to furnish thumb impressions of her fingers which exercise seems to be in consonance with the fair rules of administration of justice. Besides this, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner, rather it will support her pleadings in case the the pleadings regarding non-existence of her thumb impressions on the agreement is true.

¶22

No ground is made out for interference.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

¶25

October 22, 2009. rka

¶26

. . . 3

Saroj Devi v. Matadin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Devi v. Matadin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inder Giyan Vs Shyam Sunder and Anr.

Gurnam Singh Vs Bahadur Singh and Ors.

Kuljit Singh Vs Sarbjit Kaur

Housing Board Hry. and Ors. Vs Rajni Budhiraja

Raksha Devi Vs Reeta Rani

Pritam Kaur Sidhu Vs Punjab Agricultural Univ. and Ors.