IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5557 of 2010 Date of Decision: 31.08.2010 Kamlesh Rani ........Petitioner Versus Tirath Ram and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. ****** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL) This is plaintiff's civil revision petition, challenging the impugned order dated 21.08.2010 whereby an application for summoning Sohan Lal son of Raghunath, attesting witness of the agreement in question for giving his specimen thumb impression to get the same examined from the Finger Print and Handwriting Expert, has been rejected. As per the averments, petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.06.2002 for the property in dispute against the respondents, who are the legal heirs of Kundan Lal (vendor). One Sohan Lal son of Raghunath is alleged to be one of the attesting witness of the aforesaid agreement to sell in question. Said Sohan Lal while appearing as DW-2 has denied his thumb impression on the agreement to sell in question. Thereafter, on the application of the petitioner, the thumb impression of Sohan Lal aforesaid was allowed to be proved by examining Finger Print and Handwriting Expert, by way of additional evidence. The matter is pending before the trial Court for 07.09.2010, granting last opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence as allowed to Civil Revision No.5557 of 2010 -2- him by way of additional evidence. However, petitioner moved the instant application before the trial Court for calling Sohan Lal son of Raghunath, aforesaid, to give his specimen thumb impression. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order on the ground that the admitted thumb impression of Sohan Lal are available on the Court file which can be used by the petitioner, for comparison by the Handwriting Expert. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that on 26.04.2010, when Sohan Lal appeared in the Court as DW-2, the petitioner could not attend the Court proceedings due to the marriage of his daughter and now the petitioner is not sure that whether the above said Sohan Lal had appeared on 26.04.2010 and put his thumb impression or somebody else had appeared as witness by impersonating Sohan Lal, as their counsel Mr. Yudhister Sharma, Advocate did not know the above said witness personally and, thus, it is necessary that in the interest of justice, the aforesaid witness be called in the Court to give his thumb impression for comparing the same with the disputed thumb impression on the agreement in question. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the other documents attached with this petition along with the averments made in the revision petition. No affidavit of the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been placed on record to show that he never knew the aforesaid witness or he has doubt about the identity of the witness, when he was examined in the Court on 26.04.2010. Neither any such application has been moved by the petitioner before the Court regarding impersonation of Sohan Lal DW-2. There is nothing on record to support the contention of the petitioner, except the aforesaid apprehension as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner runs Civil Revision No.5557 of 2010 -3- counter to the plea taken by him in the application filed before the trial Court for summoning Sohan Lal in the Court to give his thumb impression. In this application, it has been pleaded that the left thumb impression of the Sohan Lal on comparison has not been found to be his impression and may be on the agreement to sell in question, by mistake, Sohan Lal has affixed his right thumb impression and, therefore, the aforesaid Sohan Lal be called and directed to give his right and left thumb impressions, which can be got compared from the Handwriting Expert. In fact, the application filed by the petitioner seems to be frivolous and even the present petition is nothing but wastage of precious Court time. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/-. Let the costs be deposited with Punjab State Legal Services Authority within one month from today. August 31, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) Gagan JUDGE