Civil Revision No. 1842 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1842 of 2010 Date of decision : March 19, 2010 Jagdish Singh ....Petitioner versus Bakshish Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. HS Dhandi, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Jagdish Singh has filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 8.2.2010, Annexure P/4, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. Vide order dated 28.8.2006, Annexure P/1, plaintiff's application for obtaining specimen thumb impressions of two witnesses of plaintiff who turned hostile was allowed so as to get the same compared from Fingerprint Expert Mr. HS Mandher. However, later on plaintiff moved application Annexure P/2 alleging that Mr. Mandher was no longer interested to act as expert witness and therefore the plaintiff has engaged one Inderjit Singh as expert to compare the thumb impressions. Civil Revision No. 1842 of 2010 -2- Accordingly, plaintiff prayed that Inderjit Singh be substituted as expert in place of Mr. Mandher. This application Annexure P/2 has been allowed by learned trial court vide impugned order dated 8.2.2010, Annexure P/4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Mr. Mandher possibly did not give report or opinion favourable to the plaintiff- respondent and therefore, the plaintiff-respondent changed his expert witness. The contention is speculative and hypothetical only. There is nothing on record to substantiate the same. There is no material to depict that Mr. Mandher gave opinion or report which was unfavourable to plaintiff-respondent. On the other hand, the dispute is regarding thumb impressions of the witnesses. Science of comparing fingerprints is a perfect science. For this reason also, change of expert would not prejudice the defendant-petitioner in any manner. In addition thereto, the defendant- petitioner shall get opportunity to lead his evidence and the petitioner may if so advised examine his own Fingerprint Expert as witness at appropriate stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that specimen thumb impressions of the two witnesses are lying with Mr. Mandher. However, for the same, the trial court may pass appropriate order, if need be or if there is apprehension of tampering with the same, the trial court shall be at liberty to order to take fresh specimen thumb impressions of the concerned witnesses. Civil Revision No. 1842 of 2010 -3- For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant revision which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 19, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'