IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1672 of 2004 Date of decision: 17.3.2009 Neelam Kumari ......Petitioner Versus Inder and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the order dated 22.3.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panchkula whereby her application to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert regarding the thumb impression of the respondent on the agreement to sell dated 20.2.1996 has been rejected. The petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.2.1996 allegedly executed by respondent No.1 by affixation of his thumb impression in presence of the witnesses. Since the respondents failed to get the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, he filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of the aforesaid agreement. The plaintiff led her evidence. Apart from appearing in the witness box she also examined one of the marginal witnesses of agreement to sell. Thereafter, the evidence of the petitioner was closed in the affirmative. The defendant-respondents in their evidence brought the handwriting/finger print expert in the witness box who gave his report and opined that the thumb impression on the agreement to sell was not that of respondent No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application to allow her to examine finger print expert in the course of CR No.1672 of 2004 -2- rebuttal evidence. The Civil Judge, Panchkula vide impugned order dated 22.3.2004 rejected the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner. Challenging the aforesaid impugned order, contention of the petitioner, at the motion stage, was that after obtaining opinion of handwriting expert by the defendant, the plaintiff had a right to examine the counter handwriting expert in spite of the fact that onus of the issue may be on either party and in support of his contention, learned counsel had relied upon a judgment of this Court in Kashmir Kaur v. Bachan Kaur 2000(1) PLR 606. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have contested the petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has vehemently argued that earlier after passing the impugned order, additional issues were framed by the trial Court wherein a similar prayer was made by the petitioner to examine the handwriting expert which was rejected vide order dated 10.3.2007 against which the petitioner has preferred Civil Revision No. 1498 of 2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.3.2007. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid judgment stands overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh and others v. Jagtar Singh and others 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 537 and it was prayed that the civil revision petition be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for respondent No.1. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. March 17, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE