C.R.No.7579 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7579 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.12.2011 Nazar Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Jeet Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for examination of the thumb impressions of Amrik Kaur and Jeet Singh, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on the agreement to sell dated 10.12.2000 in favour of late Mehar Singh alongwith their admitted signatures having been declined by the trial court vide order dated 7.10.2011, they have approached this Court through the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking setting aside of the said order. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. Mehar Singh, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell dated 10.12.2000 with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of land measuring 3 marlas in Village Katani Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana for a total consideration 1 C.R.No.7579 of 2011 of Rs.25000/-, and in pursuance thereto, possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff. The respondents were under an obligation to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On their failure to do so, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, issues were framed on 19.10.2008. The plaintiff led evidence to prove the agreement in question. The attesting witness having expired, the plaintiff could not examine him. Accordingly, the petitioners had moved an application for seeking permission to compare the thumb impressions of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the agreement to sell with their thumb impressions on the written statement and Vakalatnama. The trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 7.10.2011 impugned herein. Hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was essential for just decision of the case to have comparison of the thumb impressions of Jeet Singh and Amrik Kaur on the agreement to sell with the admitted signatures on the written statement and the Vakalatnama filed by them. 4. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. 5. The suit was filed on 18.12.2004 and the issues were framed by the trial court on 19.10.2008. The plaintiff-petitioner after concluding his evidence closed the same on 15.6.2011. The plaintiff during the entire period could have got compared the thumb impressions of Amrik Kaur and Jeet Singh as now claimed under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which he had failed to do. It was thereafter that an application for seeking permission to compare the thumb impressions by way of 2 C.R.No.7579 of 2011 additional evidence had been filed. No explanation has been given much less acceptable on the basis of which the application could be allowed after the closing of the evidence on 15.6.2011. The trial court rejected the same with the following observations:- “4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents available at this stage, I am of the considered view that applicant filed the present suit on 18.12.2004 in which issues were framed on 19.10.2008. Since then case was fixed for evidence of plaintiff. The plaintiff availed numerous opportunities, but did not conclude his evidence. Signatures/thumb impressions of the executants were already in the knowledge of applicant and fact about the thumb impression of defendants No.1 and 2 on the agreement was also in knowledge of the applicant. No new facts have come or emerged. No subsequent event has taken place during the pendency of the present suit. Moreover, the plaintiff himself closed his evidence on 15.6.2011. So I do not find any merit in the present application and same is hereby dismissed.” 6. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the order of the trial court warranting interference by this Court. 7. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. December 07, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3