Civil Revision No.2789 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2789 of 2004 Date of decision : 6-8-2009 Saroj Devi ....Petitioner VERSUS Matadin ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. Prayer in this petition is to set aside the order dated 17-05-2004, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mahendargarh directing the petitioner to furnish her specimen thumb impression for comparison with her thumb impression affixed on the agreement to sell. Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of the petitioner's evidence, the respondent cannot be allowed to lead evidence and for the said purpose prays that the petitioner be directed to furnish her thumb impression. It is submitted that in the absence of any separate application for additional evidence, the trial court committed an error in directing the petitioner to furnish her Civil Revision No.2789 of 2004 -2- thumb impression once again. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the petitioner's thumb impression on the power of attorney can be compared with the thumb impression appearing on the original agreement to sell. Counsel for the respondent, however submits that as the petitioner has submitted the report of a handwriting expert, the interest of justice would require that an opportunity be granted, to the respondent to get the thumb impressions compared. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 17-5-2004. Admittedly the respondent has not filed any application for additional evidence. As a result, the respondent had no right, whether during the evidence of petitioner or otherwise to pray for the issuance of a direction to the petitioner to furnish her thumb impressions. As a result, the trial court committed an error of jurisdiction by allowing the application and directing the petitioner to furnish thumb impressions again. Consequently, revision petition is allowed and the order dated 17-05-2004 is set aside with liberty to the respondent to file an application for additional evidence, if deemed appropriate. (RAJIVE BHALLA) 6-08-2009 JUDGE manju