OM PAL v. SMT. OMLI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS,(2022-1)205 PLR 521
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Before: Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia.
OM PAL and others – Petitioners,
Versus
SMT. OMLI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS and others – Respondents.
Civil Revision No.1697 of 2021 (O&M)
Thumb Impression – Reasoning as such, for sending the said documents for comparison was on account of the fact that there were two contrary reports of Finger Print Experts on record, both by the plaintiffs and defendants, regarding the consent decree as such, which is challenged by the plaintiff – It had been alleged that some bogus person had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in the said case – The case was thus based on fraud and in such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the issue before the lower Appellate Court is as such that whether the disputed thumb impression, which is sought to be compared is of the plaintiff – The opinion given by an independent expert or from a reputed State agency would clear the doubt in the mind of the Court and no grouse can be raised on the said course of action.
Mr. Amit Arora, for the petitioners. (through video conferencing)
*******
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral) – (25th August, 2021) – Petitioners-defendants No.1 to 3 are aggrieved against the order of the lower Appellate Court dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure P-7), whereby the directions have been given that the disputed thumb impressions of the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Omli be compared with the specimen thumb impressions taken by the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory (C.F.S.L.), Sector-36, Chandigarh.
Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the document in question, which is admitted written statement and vakalatnama were of the year 1993 filed by the plaintiff, which are sought to be compared at this belated stage and therefore, the lower Appellate Court should not have passed the said order.
Perusal of the paper book would go on to show that on an earlier occasion also, the said Court vide order dated 25.02.2020 sent the documents to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) Madhuban for comparison after taking thumb impressions of appellant/plaintiff No.1 in Court. The report from FSL, Madhuban had been received that the disputed finger print marks Q1 to Q4 on the documents mentioned above are either ink smudged or faint and do not bear sufficient ridge characteristic detail and thus are unfit for comparison. In such circumstances, fresh opinion has been sought from CFSL, Chandigarh vide Annexure P-7.
The reasoning, as such, for sending the said documents for comparison was on account of the fact that there were two contrary reports of Finger Print Experts on record, both by the plaintiffs and defendants, regarding the consent decree as such, which is challenged by the plaintiff. It had been alleged that some bogus person had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in the said case. The case was thus based on fraud and in such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the issue before the lower Appellate Court is as such that whether the disputed thumb impression, which is sought to be compared is of the plaintiff. The opinion given by an independent expert or from a reputed State agency would clear the doubt in the mind of the Court and no grouse can be raised on the said course of action. It is always open to the petitioners to contest the veracity of report, if it is adverse, on tenable grounds.
The argument, as such, raised by counsel for the petitioners that the thumb impressions are now being taken after a long time, have to be examined in proper prespect by the lower Appellate Court since even this suit as such has been filed on 21.05.2011 i.e. after a period of about seven and half years of passing of the consent decree and the experts have also given their opinion after a considerable period, which is already subject matter of consideration before the lower Appellate Court.
In such circumstances, this Court does not deem it a fit case to interfere with the impugned order passed by lower Appellate Court, in the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this petition has no merits and the same is dismissed in limine.
R.M.S. – Petition dismissed.
