CR No.7849 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7849 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Bhalle ...Petitioner Versus Baljeet and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for examination of his thumb impression from Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) having been declined by the trial court vide order dated 20.5.2011, Annexure P.2, he has approached this Court through the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the said order. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration. The defendants filed some documents which were examined by the finger print and handwriting expert. The plaintiff filed an application for examination of his thumb impression from some independent agency. The application was contested by the defendant-respondents by filing reply. The trial court vide order impugned herein dismissed the said application. Hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that the thumb impression of the plaintiff-petitioner was required to be examined from some independent agency like FSL at Madhuban. He submitted that it 1 CR No.7849 of 2011 was essential for just decision of the case and the trial court had erred in declining the same. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 5. The trial court observed that the onus was placed on the plaintiff-petitioner to establish that the judgment was fraudulent. Once that was so, the plaintiff was required to lead evidence in the affirmative and cannot be allowed comparison of his thumb impression and signatures from F.S.L., Madhuban, Haryana, in the rebuttal evidence. The trial Court while declining the same had recorded as under:- “4. I have gone through the file and heard arguments advanced by counsel for the opposing sides. The findings are as under:- 5. It is relevant to mention that the onus to prove the judgment challenged in this suit to be fraudulent, was placed on the plaintiff. Thus, he was required to lead affirmative evidence qua the same. By way of this application, he is seeking to lead his affirmative evidence at the stage of his rebuttal evidence, which cannot be allowed.” 6. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. December 19, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 2