Civil Revision No. 2695 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2695 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.05.2009. Jai Ram Petitioner Versus Devi Ram and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance against respondent no.1 on the basis of agreement dated 1.2.1999. The plea raised was that the respondent no.1 had thereby agreed to sell the land in question to the petitioner herein. In the course of the counter, the defendant-respondent no.1 categorically denied that the alleged agreement and receipt bear his thumb impression. Defendant-respondent no.1 also testified on oath at the trial that the thumb impressions appearing on the impugned agreement and receipt are not his. The petitioner herein (and the plaintiff therein) did not apply for the obtaining of specimen thumb impression of defendant no.1 for comparison with the thumb impressions appearing on the agreement dated 1.2.1999. It is only Civil Revision No. 2695 of 2009 -2- **** at the rebuttal evidence stage that he applied for the leave of the Court to get the disputed signatures of defendant-respondent no.1 compared. The averment, made in the course of the application, was that the fact of denial of thumb impression came to the notice of the petitioner herein only later. The learned Trial Court appropriately noticed that the plea raised was misconceived because the same was factually incorrect because it was in the course of the written statement itself that defendant-respondent no.1 had denied the thumb impression upon the agreement. The case is already at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments on merits thereof. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 14, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge