Civil Revision No. 1527 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1527 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.07.2010 Nirmal Singh ....Petitioner Versus Jagir Singh Panch (SC) and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, and Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Abhijat Gaur, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 7. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 9.2.2010, vide which the opportunity to produce the report regarding thumb impression, stands declined. The impugned order reads as under: - “File of the election petition is produced. Counsel for the parties are present. As defendant could not produce his witness today so his rest of evidence could not be produced. After giving repeated opportunities the defendants have failed to produce the thumb impression of petitioner No.2. Thus the opportunity of producing the report of thumb impression is being closed. File be produced on 11.2.2010.” The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the election of the petitioner was Civil Revision No. 1527 of 2010 (O&M) -2- challenged by the respondents by denying their thumb impression on the proceeding-book, and it was necessary for the petitioner to examine the thumb impression on the proceeding-book to prove that these were of Jagir Singh/respondent. The application moved by the petitioner was allowed on 14.1.2010 and the case was adjourned to 18.1.2010 for thumb impression of Jagir Singh. It is further the case of the petitioner that no proceedings were held on 18.1.2010 and the case was adjourned to 19.1.2010 when the thumb impression of Jagir Singh was taken in the Court. The petitioner thereafter was given opportunity to submit the report of hand writing expert by 2.2.2010. On the date fixed, the petitioner could not submit the report, as it was not received from the expert. The case was adjourned to 9.2.2010. On 9.2.2010 also the report could not be produced, therefore, an opportunity was sought, which was declined by impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as the evidence to be led by examining an expert, is evidence which is very material for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Furthermore, the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer, for the fault of the witness in not submitting the report in time granted by the learned Presiding Officer. The contention is, that costs could have been imposed for the inconvenience caused to the other party, specially when the evidence is still in progress, beside evidence being material evidence. The revision petition is opposed by the learned counsel Civil Revision No. 1527 of 2010 (O&M) -3- appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 by contending that the attempt is made to delay the proceedings, as in pursuance to the order passed, even thumb impression of Jagir Singh has not been taken till date. It will not be possible for the petitioner to produce the report as claimed in this Court. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once positive stand has been taken that the thumb impression of Jagir Singh were taken in the proceedings on 19.1.2010 and the report is awaited, it is for the petitioner to submit that report. The period taken for submission of report, cannot be said to be inordinate, to hold that attempt is being made to delay the proceedings. The order passed by the learned Presiding Officer on the face of it is harsh, as the petitioner has not been given complete opportunity to prove the case by examining expert, though the application stands allowed. For the reasons stated, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted one last opportunity to produce report along with hand writing expert for his cross-examination by the respondents on the date to be fixed by the learned Presiding Officer. This shall, however, be subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as costs, for the inconvenience caused to the respondents. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 12, 2010 R.S.