RSA No.378 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.378 of 2010 Decided on : 29.01.2010 Gurdev Singh ... Appellant versus Pala & Pal Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent restraining the appellant from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute on the ground that the said land was allotted to respondent being a displaced person. The plea taken by the appellant was that in fact respondent had sold the land to the appellant by way of unregistered writing, a photostat copy of which had been placed on record before the trial court as Ex.D-1. After the evidence of the appellant was over, he moved an application to examine the handwriting expert to prove the thumb impressions of the respondent on the said writing Ex.D-1. That application was rejected and the trial court RSA No.378 of 2010 -2- dismissed the suit. In appeal, the prayer of the appellant for producing the handwriting expert was allowed. However, the report of the handwriting expert was rejected because as stated above, Ex.D-1 was a photostat copy and thus, the handwriting expert had not compared the original thumb impressions but had compared what were in fact a photocopy. The ld. Lower Appellate Court also relied on the fact that during his examination the appellant did not give any explanation as to where the original writing was laying. The ld. Lower Appellate Court also found that the said writing does not bear any date, month or year of execution. The attesting witnesses have also not deposed about the execution of the said document in a satisfactory manner. In these circumstances, the appeal was dismissed. Following questions of law have been proposed: i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for? ii) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? In view of the findings of fact recorded to the effect that the appellant has not been able to prove the transfer of title from the respondent to him, the proposed questions do not arise. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. January 29, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE