The revision petition challenging an order allowing the examination of a thumb impression in an underlying civil suit was dismissed. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how affixing the thumb impression again would prejudice their interests, thereby finding no ground to interfere with the lower court's order.
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.
1
C.R. No.304 of 2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No.304 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.02.2013
Jeet Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Ram Dia and another ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the Order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Assandh, vide which, the application dated 18.09.2012 moved by the respondent to examine the thumb impression of the petitioner has been allowed.
The only argument which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the thumb impression of the petitioner is available on vakalatnama as well as different applications filed by the petitioner and also on the affidavit in evidence but to get thumb impression again is not justified. Learned counsel also submits that a report has already been submitted by the thumb impression expert and now there is no need to get afresh thumb impression.
I have heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned Order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Assandh.
As per findings recorded by the trial Court, there was no denial in giving thumb impression and subsequently to contest that is not
C.R. No.304 of 2013 (O&M)
2
appropriate. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince the Court on the ground that there was a serious objection, as is clear from the reply of the application but a wrong finding has been given by the trial Court. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the thumb impression of the petitioner is already on vakalatnama and other various applications but as per report, the earlier thumb impression was not clear as submitted by thumb impression expert and because of that reason, the thumb impression has been sought.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince the Court as to how this is going to prejudice the interest of the petitioner or the other party is going to be benefited by it.
Hence, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Assandh.
The petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
06.02.2013 gurpreet
Jeet Singh
Ram Dia
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
