Civil Revision No.4933 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4933 of 2011 Date of Decision:17.08.2011 Balbir Singh ......Petitioner Versus Harcharan Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Dinesh Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Harcharan Kaur @ Gurcharan Kaur @ Charan Kaur wife of Santokh Singh- respondent No.1-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration/possession to the effect that she is owner and in possession of the land in dispute, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Balbir Singh son of Harjit Singh-petitioner-defendant No.1 and other proforma respondent Nos.2 to 4-defendants(for short “the defendants”) from changing its nature. 2. During the advance stage of the suit, the petitioner-defendant No.1 moved an application, for sending the documents for comparison of thumb impressions to the Finger Print Bureau, Punjab Police Training College, Phillaur. The plaintiff refuted the prayer of defendant No.1, filed the reply and prayed for dismissal of the application. 3. The trial Court dismissed the application of defendant No.1, by virtue of impugned order dated 02.02.2011(Annexure P-1). Civil Revision No.4933 of 2011 2 4. Aggrieved by the impugned decision(Annexure P-1) of the trial Court, the petitioner-defendant No.1 preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 6. As is evident from the record that, having completed all the codal formalities and providing adequate opportunities to lead evidence to the parties, the case was ripe for arguments, when petitioner-defendant No.1 moved the present application. Once, the parties availed full opportunities and produced oral as well as the documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective stands, then to me, there was no occasion, at this stage, to refer the documents for comparison, to the Finger Print Bureau, Punjab Police Training College, Phillaur. It will amount to filling-up the lacuna in the evidence of the parties, which cannot legally be permitted. Moreover, the trial Court has rightly negatived the claim of petitioner-defendant No.1, by means of impugned order dated 02.02.2011 (Annexure P-1), which in substance is, as under:- “Now, the case pertains to the year 2003 and the case is ripe for argument when the present application has been filed for sending the documents for the comparison of the thumb impressions of deceased, Amar Singh to the Finger Print Bureau, Punjab Police Training College, Phillaur. It was up to the defendant/applicant to prove the Will by leading the evidence, onus of which is placed on the defendant. Now when the defendant has already led its evidence, the case is now fixed for rebuttal and arguments, moving of present application shows that the same has been filed just to delay the proceedings of the case and the case is more than 7 years old, already fixed for rebuttal evidence if any or for arguments. So, the present application is having devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed.” 7. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the valid grounds in the impugned order in this relevant connection. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of Civil Revision No.4933 of 2011 3 this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. August 17, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE