Civil Revision No. 2191 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2191 of 2011 Date of Decision: 29.9.2011 Rameshwar Dass ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Shanti Devi and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Pillania, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 6. None for respondents No.7 and 8. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff to the suit, feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 17.3.2011 (Annexure P4), whereby the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad, has declined his application (Annexure P3) that the purported thumb impressions of Birbal, in the impugned proceedings of the suit, be got compared with a registered Will No. 127 dated 5.10.1999. In the suit filed, the petitioner has specifically stated that the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1983, passed in Civil Case No. 409 of 1983 are liable to be set aside as his father Birbal was impersonated. It Civil Revision No. 2191 of 2011 2 is not disputed that when the application for examining the Handwriting- Cum-Finger Print Expert was filed, the plaintiff had not concluded his evidence and on the day application was rejected, next date was given for recording defendant's evidence. The application (Annexure P3) was dismissed by the trial Judge on the ground that as per the admission made by the plaintiff, his father Birbal used to append his signatures, therefore, there is no necessity to get the comparison of his thumb impressions done. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the science of comparison of thumb impression is a perfect science and if the thumb impressions, in the impugned proceedings of the Court, are compared with a registered Will, the truth would emerge. Furthermore, the trial Court has declined the application on the ground that the same has been filed at the belated stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has disputed this fact on the ground that on the day, when the application was filed, plaintiff's evidence had not concluded. Learned counsel for the respondent has failed to advance any meaningful counter arguments. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the trial Judge ought to have allowed the application (Annexure P3) and permitted the petitioner/plaintiff to compare the thumb impressions of Birbal, father of the petitioner/plaintiff, in the impugned proceedings with the registered Will, as the best evidence should be available before the Court to arrive at the truth to dispense justice. Civil Revision No. 2191 of 2011 3 Accordingly, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 17.3.2011 (Annexure P4) is set aside. The application (Annexure P3), filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is allowed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 29, 2011 “DK”