The High Court dismissed a civil revision challenging the rejection of a prayer to send a disputed document to an independent laboratory. The court held that once a government laboratory at Madhuban issued an unfavourable report on comparison, a fresh opinion was not warranted despite the absence of reasoning in the report.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No. 1398 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1398 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.3.2012
Birmati
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Naseeb Singh .. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 17.2.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for sending the questioned document to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad or any other independent agency to opine as to whether the signatures/thumb impression are as a result of scanning or any other fraudulent device had been used, was rejected.
It is a case in which the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell against the petitioner-defendant. Initially the petitioner filed application for comparison of the signatures and thumb impression on the questioned document raising a plea that she never executed the agreement. It was stated in the application that fraud may have been committed and the signatures on the agreement to sell may be result of use of scanning with computer. The application was dismissed by the trial court. However, ultimately the matter went upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court, where the prayer made by the petitioner for comparison of the signatures and thumb impression on the questioned document was allowed on 21.7.2008. After that document was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, a report was received pertaining to the signatures only. The petitioner filed objections to the report raising a grouse that the report regarding signatures is not correct and thumb impression has not been compared. The learned
Civil Revision No. 1398 of 2012 [2]
court below, vide order dated 1.5.2010, sent thumb impression of the petitioner for comparison as the report regarding signatures had been received. Thereafter, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban sent a report dated 16.2.2011 regarding thumb impression of the petitioner on the questioned document. The petitioner filed objections thereto praying that reports from Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban being not reasoned, the questioned document be sent to some other independent laboratory, i.e., Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for comparison. The application having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while filing the application initially an opinion of the laboratory was also sought as to whether the signatures or thumb impression on the questioned document have been scanned by use of any device, regarding which there is no report. For the purpose, the document should be sent to some other independent laboratory.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The application initially filed by the petitioner for comparison of the signatures and thumb impression was dismissed by the trial court. However, Hon'ble the Supreme Court accepted the same by directing that signatures and thumb impression of the petitioner on agreement dated 28.9.1999 be sent for comparison to government laboratory at Madhuban. Once a report thereof has been received, which apparently is not in favour of the petitioner, the prayer for sending the same to any other independent laboratory for fresh comparison cannot be allowed.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
5.3.2012 mk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to be sent the impugned document to an independent laboratory for fresh comparison after a government laboratory had already issued a report unfavourable to her.
Whether a non-reasoned technical report warrants sending the document to another authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hon'ble the Supreme CourtReferred¶16
Birmati
Naseeb Singh
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
