IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 45 of 2011. Date of decision: 28.4.2011. Vijay Kumar …Petitioner. Versus Harjeet Singh & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mrs. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Indora, District Kangra whereby the learned Trial Court has refused to send the document Ext. PW2/B for comparison of the signatures of the defendant on the said document to the Finger Prints Expert. 2. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for Specific Performance of agreement alleging that the defendant had agreed to sell the property in his favour by means of agreement Ext. PW2/B. The stand of the defendant was that he was asked to put his thumb 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. mark on certain documents and he had put various thumb : 2 : marks on the document as a witness, but had never entered into an agreement to sell the property. Even in the affidavit filed by the defendant in evidence, it is clearly stated that the father of the plaintiff had brought him to the Tehsil Office, Indora where he was required to thumb mark some documents as a witness, since he is an old resident of Kathgarh (Tanda). However, he had not put his thumb impression on any agreement, nor he had received any money. In cross-examination he has stated that he is an illiterate person and only affixes his thumb impression. In cross-examination he further stated that on 9.8.1999 he was asked to put thumb impression on some blank document and has clearly stated that on this blank paper his thumb impressions were taken, but according to him he had never sold the property. The case of the plaintiff is that the respondent has not only put his thumb mark on one page of the agreement, but put his thumb mark on all three pages. He submits that the entire document be sent for comparison to the handwriting expert. 3. In my view it is not necessary to send the document, since as observed by the learned Trial Court it is not only one sentence of the cross-examination which has to be read in evidence. If the written statement and the entire evidence of the defendant is read as a whole, it is apparent that he is not denying his thumb impressions on : 3 : this document, but is only stating that they were obtained by misrepresentation that he had to sign an application as a witness and had not put his thumb mark on any document as a proposed vendor. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge April 28, 2011. (Krn Guleria)