IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6349 of 2009 Date of decision : January 13, 2010 Natha Singh and others ....Petitioners versus Balbir Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Ms. Aparna Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. KS Rekhi, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1, 35 and 36 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 4 have filed the instant revision petition impugning order dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure P/3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, thereby dismissing plaintiffs' application for permitting the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert to examine the court file and to compare the alleged thumb impressions/signatures of the plaintiffs on the disputed powers of attorney and sale deeds with their specimen thumb impressions/signatures to be obtained in the court. The plaintiffs in the plaint have, interalia, pleaded that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have manipulated three general powers of attorney and three sale deeds as detailed in paragraph 2 of the plaint but the said documents were never executed by the plaintiffs and therefore, it is essential Civil Revision No. 6349 of 2009 -2- to get the alleged signatures/thumb impressions on the said documents compared with their specimen signatures/thumb impressions. Defendants opposed the said application alleging, interalia, that the dates of power of attorneys and sale deeds have not been mentioned in the application, Annexure P/2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in application Annexure P/2, the plaintiffs mentioned about general powers of attorney and sale deeds as mentioned in the plaint and details of these documents have been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint and therefore, the application could not have been dismissed on the ground that in the application details of the documents have not been mentioned. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents contended that the plaintiffs have not mentioned in the application as to on which sale deed and general power of attorney signatures or thumb impressions are to be compared. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Perusal of application Annexure P/2 reveals that the plaintiffs wanted comparison of thumb impressions and signatures appearing on general powers of attorney and sale deeds which were detailed in the plaint. It is undisputed that three general powers of attorney and three sale deeds have been detailed in paragraph 2 of the plaint having all relevant particulars of the documents. Consequently, the application could not be dismissed on the ground that particulars of general powers of attorney and sale deeds on which thumb Civil Revision No. 6349 of 2009 -3- impressions/signatures are to be compared have not been mentioned in the application because the said particulars are manifest from combined reading of application Annexure P/2 and the plaint. The plaintiffs are yet to lead their evidence. They have a right to lead relevant evidence. Obviously when execution of the aforesaid documents is in controversy, the most relevant evidence would be as to whether the said documents bear the thumb impressions/signatures of the plaintiffs or not. The impugned order of the trial court is completely illegal and unsustainable. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and order dated 21.8.2009, Annexure P/3, passed by learned trial court is set aside and application, Annexure P/2, moved by the plaintiffs is allowed. The plaintiffs are granted permission to get the documents in question examined from Finger Print and Handwriting Expert and to get the thumb impressions/signatures thereon compared with their specimen thumb impressions/signatures to be taken in the trial court. ( L.N. Mittal ) January 13, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'