IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.128 of 2008. Date of decision:23.04.2009. Baldev Singh & Others …Petitioners Versus Tulsi Ram & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Naveen K.Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Respondents 1, 3 & 4: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For Respondents 2(a) to 2(e): Mr.Dalip Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been preferred against the order of the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Court No.2, Ghumarwin, dismissing the application under Sections 67 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for comparison of the hand writing/thumb impression of the executant of the document in dispute. The learned Court while declining the prayer of the petitioners herein, noticed that the plaintiffs have examined the scribe and marginal witness to the disputed document Ex.PW-1/A and that it was not the proper stage for comparison of the signatures and thumb impression as prayed. More importantly the Court notices:- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. “… … … After the arguments and perusal of the case if the same becomes necessary for the final adjudication, the comparison can be ordered by this Court. Thus, the application Under Section 67 and 73 Indian Evidence Act, deserves no merit and is accordingly dismissed. After completion be tagged.” The right of the petitioners herein has not been closed, but the entire issue has been left open. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality necessitating the intervention of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. April 23, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.