Dismissed

Amar Kaur v. Badal Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Jan 2013CR/4650/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision, the petitioner challenged the trial court's rejection of an application to send disputed documents to a forensic lab for thumb impression comparison. The High Court held that the existing expert opinion was sufficient and examining a government expert would not enhance the report's quality. Consequently, the court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amar Kaur Vs Badal Singh and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.4650 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:30.01.2013

¶3

Surinder Kaur ...Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

Badal Singh and others

¶6

....Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶8

Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Hemani Sarin, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2.

¶10

Mr. R.P. Verma, Advocate, for Mr. B.B.S. Sobti, Advocate, for respondents 3 and 4.

¶11

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No.

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.

¶14

¶15

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

¶16

The revision is against the dismissal of the application

¶17

for sending the document to a thumb-impression expert for comparison of thumb-impression on the disputed document with specimen thumb-impression taken in Court. It appears that the plaintiff had examined a thumb-impression expert at the ex parte

¶18

Civil Revision No.4650 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 -

¶19

stage and the same thumb-impression expert was examined after de novo trial was ordered. In the course of examination of the witness, it was sought to be elicited from the witness whether he had not taken a second opinion on the thumb-impression from any other person, particularly in view of the fact that he had already given a report and he was again giving a report by taking fresh specimen thumb-impression. This cross-examination, according to the plaintiff, amounted to casting an aspersion on his objective appraisal and, therefore, felt constrained to move an application for sending the document to the forensic lab, established by the State, for securing an opinion of the thumb-impression expert.

¶20

The trial Court rejected the prayer on an observation that there had been already on record a thumb-impression expert opinion and it was unnecessary to have the same task replicated through another report. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would fault this reasoning by contending that a witness, who is brought by a party, is believed to normally support the party, who summons him and, therefore, to secure an unbiased objective report, a forensic expert from the Government lab be examined. Thumb-impression science is more exact than an opinion secured from a handwriting expert. It ought to be immaterial that a person, who has given a report, is a private expert brought at the instance of the plaintiff as his witness. By examining a Government

¶21

Civil Revision No.4650 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 -

¶22

expert, in my view, it would not enhance the quality of the report. A report has to be supported by what it contains and what is sought to be elicited in the examination in Court. The strength of a report will therefore determine in its own intrinsic value and cannot depend on whether the person is a freelance expert or an expert appointed by the Government. The rejection of the request by the trial Court in the course of trial, I would hold, to be justified and see no reason for interference in revision.

¶23

The impugned order is maintained and the civil revision is dismissed.

¶24

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.01.2013 sanjeev

Amar Kaur v. Badal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amar Kaur v. Badal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjit Singh Vs Amarjit Kaur & Ors.

Manjit Singh Vs Parvati Devi and Anr.

Jasbir Singh Vs Bhajan Singh

Baru Vs Kailash Chand and Ors.

Yadav Sabha Thr. Its Gen. Secy. & Anr. Vs Ram Narain Yadav & Anr.

Hari Om Vs Satish Kapoor