HAJI MOHAMMAD USMAN Vs. RAM SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhiraj Srivastava learned counsel for respondent no.1 / 2 Anil Kumar.

(2.) In O.S. no.256 of 1982 Ram Swaroop since deceased and survived by legal representatives Vs. Liaqat Ali and others on 30.9.1983 an order was passed directing defendant no.3 petitioner Haji Mohammad Usman to give his specimen thumb impression so that it could be compared with his thumb impression on his vakalatnama filed in Execution case no.2 of 1981. The relief claimed in the suit is for cancellation of decree passed in Original Suit No.344 of 1980 on alleged compromise. Plaintiff was asserting that on the said vakalatnama there was thumb impression of defendant no.3 but defendant no.3 was denying that. It is very strange that for 30 years defendant no.3 did not give his specimen thumb impression. However, for that fault alone suit could not be directed to proceed ex parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to refusal of defendant no.3 to give his specimen thumb impression the court below could hold that the signatures on the disputed vakalatnama were of defendant no.3 but suit could not be directed to proceed ex parte.

(3.) The first thing to be noticed in this writ petition is the description of the petitioner which is as follows: