C.R. No.359 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.359 of 2011 (O&M). Decided on: January 24, 2011. Sawan Singh. .. Petitioner VERSUS Sucha Singh and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.D.P.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 07.12.2010, dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for comparison of his thumb impression with the thumb impression existing on the sale deed dated 09.04.1986. The plaintiff-petitioner is seeking a declaration that he is a co-sharer in . . . 1 C.R. No.359 of 2011 (O&M) possession of the suit land and the sale deed dated 09.04.1986 executed by him in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void. He has taken up a plea that the sale deed is the result of fraud and impersonation. The application was opposed, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff wants to delay the proceedings. The case is fixed for final arguments and that the comparison is not necessary. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I have also perused the examination-in-chief of Sawan Singh petitioner and his cross-examination which was conducted on 15.02.2010. In his cross-examination, he had stated that he signs in Punjab and English. He had denied the suggestion of having thumb marked the sale deed. He stated that he was ready to get the thumb impression existing on the sale deed compared. No application was moved on the said date. An attempt has been made to get the thumb impressions on the sale deed compared with the thumb impressions of the plaintiff-petitioner while the evidence of the plaintiff and the rebuttal evidence has been closed. During the course of arguments, on asking of the Court, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the original sale deed has not been brought on the record. Taking into consideration, the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the application having been filed for comparison of the thumb impressions on the sale deed at a belated stage is not permissible. Besides this, I am of the opinion . . . 2 C.R. No.359 of 2011 (O&M) that the original sale deed bearing the thumb impressions of the executor being not part of the case file, it would be inappropriate on the part of the trial Court to permit the comparison of the thumb impressions. There being no issue regarding the validity of the sale deed having been made out, no ground is made out for interference in the order. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE January 24, 2011. rka . . . 3