IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5873 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 30, 2008 Banta Singh .....Petitioner Versus Ajit Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Ms. R.K.Thind, Advocate. ***** T.P.S.MANN, J , Application filed by the defendant-petitioner for leading additional evidence by examination of expert for comparison of thumb impression of Smt.Bhagan and for permission to exhibit the sale-deed dated 3.1.1972 was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 30.9.2008. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. C.R. No. 5873 of 2008 -2- Suit for declaration was filed by Ajit Singh-respondent to the effect that he was and continued to be owner of site measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas alongwith structure standing on it, on the basis of registered Will dated 6.3.1974 executed by his mother Smt.Bhagan and that Banta Singh-petitioner had no right, title or interest in the said property. Consequential relief of possession of the suit property was also sought on the basis of the title. The suit was filed on 11.2.2000. The plaintiff-respondent closed his evidence on March 20, 2004. While examining his evidence, the defendant-petitioner produced Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and finger prints expert to compare the thumb impression of Smt.Bhagan on a writing dated 3.1.1972 with the one as appearing on the Will dated 6.3.1974. It is the case of the defendant-petitioner that no such Will dated 6.3.1974 had been executed by Smt.Bhagan. If that was his stand, he could not be allowed to get the thumb impression of Smt.Bhagan on writing dated 3.1.1972 compared with the thumb impression of Smt.Bhagan as appearing on the Will in question. As regards the plea of the defendant-petitioner for exhibiting/marking the writing dated 3.1.1972, which, according to him, could not be done due to oversight, it may be noticed that he C.R. No. 5873 of 2008 -3- had earlier filed two applications, one seeking permission to mark or exhibit the said writing and another for framing an additional issue in the suit. Both these applications were dismissed by the trial Court. Under these circumstances, learned trial Court was justified in holding that the defendant-petitioner was not acting with due diligence and that the trial of the suit which was instituted in February 2000 was getting delayed. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) October 30, 2008 JUDGE ajay-1