CR No.4863 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4863 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 15.1.2010 Jasvir Kaur ......Petitioner(s) Versus Balwinder Kaur and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. P.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents despite service. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) As per the averments made in this petition, respondents No.1 to 4 filed an election petition for setting aside the election of the petitioner as well as respondents No.9 to 11. During the pendency of the aforesaid election petition before the Election Tribunal, Faridkot, respondents No.1 to 4 filed an application for allowing them to lead evidence by way of examining the signatures of the witnesses on the election forms by handwriting experts. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Faridkot vide his order dated 2.7.2009. The said order was not challenged by the respondents. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 21.7.2009, respondent No.1 again filed an application for allowing her to examine the signatures of the witnesses on the election forms by the handwriting experts. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Presiding Officer vide impugned order dated 30.7.2009. Challenging the aforesaid order by way of instant petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the CR No.4863 of 2009(O&M) 2 impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the same prayer of respondents No.1 to 4 was declined by the Tribunal vide order dated 2.7.2009. The aforesaid order had already become final between the parties and thus, the impugned order could not be passed by the Presiding Officer of the Election Tribunal, Faridkot, and the same is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention that despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 11. I have perused the impugned order which shows that the Presiding Officer had granted the permission to respondents No.1 to 4 to get the identification of thumb impressions/signatures from handwriting experts examined by reviewing his earlier order dated 2.7.2009 relying upon an order dated 26.5.2009 passed by this Court in CR No.463 of 2009 in some other case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court the aforesaid order dated 26.5.2009 passed in CR No.463 of 2009. It may be pointed out here that the aforesaid civil revision was disposed of vide order dated 26.5.2009 allowing the petitioners of that case to examine the handwriting experts, observing therein as under: “ Having perused the impugned order, the Court appears to have not taken correct view of the matter that science of thumb impression is not a perfect science. It may be observed that science of thumb impression is fairly perfect science. In any case to check the unfairness on the part of the handwriting expert, he is examined in Court and his veracity could be tested by cross-examination. The other party would also CR No.4863 of 2009(O&M) 3 have an opportunity to examine another expert in rebuttal thereafter, the Court after scrutinizing the evidence and also visualizing the questioned thumb impression with its own expert eye would reach the conclusion that if disputed thumb impression on the withdrawal form was of the petitioner. As such, these petitions are accepted, the impugned order is set aside and petitioners would be at liberty to examine the handwriting expert for making an opinion regarding disputed thumb impression/signatures.” Impugned order was passed by the Tribunal replying upon the aforesaid order passed in CR No.463 of 2009 which is wholly misplaced as vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal in fact had granted an opportunity to the petitioners of that case to prove the thumb impressions and get the handwriting experts examined and no permission was granted to the Tribunal to allow such opportunity by reviewing its own order which has become final between the parties as in the present case. Once the respondents failed to avail the aforesaid opportunity which was granted vide order dated 2.7.2009, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to review its earlier order and again grant an opportunity. In this view of the matter, the present revision petition is allowed and Impugned order dated 30.7.2009 is set aside and application (Annexure P-3) filed by respondent No.1 before the Election Tribunal is rejected. January 15, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE