CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sheo Narain and Another vs Rawat and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 23 July 1984 · Citation: AIR 1986 P&H 174 : (1985) 82 PLR 47

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Sodhi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 45, 73
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 1284 of 1984 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 2305-CII of 1984
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 367 words
1.

What has been challenged in this Revision Petition is the wholly untenable order of the trial Court, declining the request of the plaintiff for obtaining the specimen thumb impressions of the defendant for comparison with the disputed thumb impressions on an application. In turning down this prayer, the trial court observed. "the Court can direct any of the parties to give his specimen thumb impression or the handwriting as the case may be but this power is limited for the satisfaction of the Court and not beyond that". It was further stated, "this Court cannot direct any of the parties to give the specimen thumb impressions or the handwriting as the case may be for the purpose of evidence of any of the parties."

2.

The fallacy in the reasoning adopted by the trial Court is brought out by the judgment of the Division Bench in Guru Nanak Construction Company v. Jai Bharat steel Rolling Mills Jaitu 1976 Cur LJ (Civ) 447, where after setting out the provisions of Ss. 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, it was observed, the bare reading of both these provisions how that the court has been empowered to direct any person to give specimen signature or handwriting with a view to get the same compared with the disputed ones. This power may be exercised by the Court for its own satisfaction or even on an application being made by any party to the proceedings. If these section are interpreted to mean that this can only be done by the Court for its own satisfaction that would be to perpetuate injustice."

3.

There can, thus, be no manner of doubt that the Court was indeed empowered to call upon a party to give his specimen thumb impressions and this request could not be declined merely on the ground that it had been made by a party to the litigation and could be used as evidence by such party.

4.

The impugned order of the trial Court is accordingly hereby set aside and the Court is directed to deal with the application in accordance with law.

5.

This Revision Petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 200/-.

Petition allowed.