RSA No.1844 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1844 of 2007 Date of Decision: 30.07.2009 Dharam Raj ...Appellant VERSUS Harpal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. B. S. Tewatia, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Bhupinder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Lokesh K. Sinhal, Advocate for the respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for possession. The following questions have been proposed by the learned counsel:- i) “Whether the judgment and decrees passed by both the courts below is legal as per facts of the case? ii)Whether dismissing the application moved by the appellant before the learned trial court and learned appellate court for examining the thumb impression of the respondent, is legal? iii)Whether for proving the case of the appellant the signature of respondent and opinion of finger expert is not necessary?” RSA No.1844 of 2007 -2- The Courts below have found that the persons mentioned as witnesses of the agreement to sell have not been produced. Further the Courts below have found that in view of the denial of the respondents regarding execution of sale deed it was incumbent upon the appellant to produce a hand writing expert to compare the thumb impression of the respondents on the agreement to sell which was an admitted thumb impression but the same was not done. An application for additional evidence was filed in this regard before the learned lower Appellate Court but the same was rejected primarily on the ground that it did not meet the stringent requirement of Order 22 Rule 27. A perusal of question No.1 reflects that it is a question of fact. Having been taken through the finding and the evidence, I am not being persuaded to hold that the findings recorded on the various issues are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of the evidence so as to render the same perverse. Questions No.2 and 3 have already been opined and I have already been discussed above. Consequently deciding all the questions against the appellant, I dismiss the appeal. No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 30, 2009 JUDGE ashish