Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANJAY KUMAR & ORS versus DARSHAN LAL & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sanjay Kumar & Ors v. Darshan Lal & Anr - CR-3734-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 1356 (2 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CIVIL REVISION NO.3734 OF 2004 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 14, 2006

Sanjay Kumar and others

.....PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Darshan Lal and another

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr.Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr.Ashok Khuber, Advocate,

for respondent No.1.

..

JUDGMENT

The defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.7.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Jagadhri vide which the application filed by the plaintiff to get compared the thumb impression of Smt.Chalti Devi on the Gift Deed (Ex.D2) with her thumb impression on the agreement to sell dated 30.6.1999 from the Handwriting Expert, has been allowed by way of leading additional evidence.

2. In this case, a suit for specific performance has been filed on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 30.6.1999. The said agreement was alleged to have been executed by Sanjay Kumar, Shanti Devi and Smt.Chalti Devi. In the written statement filed by the defendants, the execution of the said agreement was denied. The plaintiff got compared the signatures and thumb impression of the defendants Sanjay Kumar and CIVIL REVISION NO.3734 OF 2004 (O&M) (2) Shanti Devi in the affirmative evidence, but since the admitted thumb impression of Smt. Chalti Devi was not available, therefore, her thumb impression was not got compared. When in their evidence, the defendants produced the Gift Deed (Ex.D2) executed by Smt.Chalti Devi, the plaintiff filed an application for comparison of the admitted thumb impression of Smt.Chalti Devi on the said Gift Deed with her thumb impression on the agreement to sell dated 30.6.1999. The said application has been allowed vide impugned order.

3. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

4. Counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that when the plaintiff-respondent was leading the evidence in affirmative, the admitted specimen thumb impression of Smt.Chalti Devi was not available on the record. Subsequently, when the defendants produced the Gift Deed (Ex.D2) executed by Smt. Chalti Devi, an application for comparison of her thumb impression from the Handwriting Expert was filed and the same has been allowed. It is always in the interest of justice that every party should be provided an opportunity to prove his case. In these facts and circumstances, I do not find that the instant case is an exceptional case where interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required.

5. Dismissed. February 14, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.