C.R. No.3333 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3333 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.09.2010. Shakuntla Sharma .....Petitioner Versus Ugay Vir Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. P. L. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 ex parte. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-Shakuntla Sharma has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 08.02.2010 Annexure P-2 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad thereby dismissing application Annexure P-1 moved by the plaintiff for examination of handwriting expert (finger print expert?) for comparison of thumb impressions of Uday Vir alias Uday Ram-respondent No.1. Plaintiff-petitioner filed suit against Sultan Singh alleging that sale deed was executed by Sultan Singh. Sultan Singh has since died and is represented by his sons i.e respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.1 is alleged to be witness of the said sale deed. Respondent No.1 while appearing in the witness box denied having thumb marked the said sale deed as witness. In view thereof, C.R. No.3333 of 2010 -2- plaintiff moved application Annexure P-1 for examination of expert to compare the thumb impression of Uday Vir-respondent No.1 on the sale deed with his specimen thumb impressions. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Sultan Singh original defendant No.1 in his written statement did not deny the execution of the sale deed by him, but respondent No.1 while appearing in the witness box denied having thumb marked the sale deed as witness, necessitating the filing of application Annexure P-1 for examination of expert to compare the thumb impressions of respondent No.1 on the sale deed with his specimen thumb impressions. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that respondent No.1 was cross-examined on 25.09.2008 whereas application Annexure P-1 was moved on 27.11.2009 i.e after one year and two months and, therefore, the application has been rightly dismissed. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The trial Court has dismissed the application only on the ground of delay. On the contrary, Sultan Singh predecessor of respondent Nos.1 and 2 allegedly did not deny the execution of the sale deed by him whereas respondent No.1 while appearing in the witness box denied having been thumb marked the sale deed as witness. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to examine finger print expert to compare the alleged thumb impression of C.R. No.3333 of 2010 -3- respondent No.1 on the sale deed with his specimen thumb impressions, on payment of costs. Plaintiff has to be burdened with costs because application was moved very belatedly by the plaintiff- petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.02.2010 Annexure P-2 passed by the trial Court is set aside and application Annexure P-1 moved by the plaintiff-petitioner in the trial Court is allowed and the plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to examine finger print expert for comparison of alleged thumb impressions of respondent No.1 on the sale deed with his specimen thumb impressions, subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs precedent. 08.09.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE