SK.MUSTAFA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JAJPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two writ applications arise out of the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur in two different Civil Revisions. Both the Civil Revisions were filed against a common judgment passed by the trial Court rejecting two applications and hence both the writ applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE plaintiff -opposite parties filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to send the L.T.I. of Sk. Sahebjan appearing in the Service Book to any fingerprint expert outside the State for comparison with the disputed L.T.I. on the ground that the admitted L.T.I. of Sk. Sahebjan could not be compared with the disputed L.T.I. as modern technicalities of comparison are not available in the State Fingerprint Bureau. The said petition was rejected by the trial Court. Against the said order, the plaintiff -opposite parties filed Civil Revision No.39 of 1997 before the learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur. The revision having been allowed, the defendant -petitioners have filed O.J.C. No. 15812 of 1998.

(3.) SO far as O.J.C. No.15812 of 1998 is concerned, it appears form the record that the L.T.I. of Sk. Sahebjan which was marked as Ext. Z during hearing of the suit is partially faint, smudged and super -imposed. It was also found that the required number of ridges for a detailed comparison were not available. In absence of the above, the fingerprint expert could not give any opinion and this position is not disputed by either party. There is also no dispute that at one point of time the Court felt the necessity of getting the L.T.I. examined in relation to the admitted L.T.I. by a fingerprint expert for deciding the issue involved in the suit. Since the first fingerprint expert could not give any opinion because of the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff -opposite parties should have been allowed by the trial Court. On perusal of the revisional order, I find that the revisional Court has given cogent reasons for allowing the revision and directing examination of the L.T.I. by another fingerprint expert who has got the technical know -how in examination of the said L.T.I. which is partially faint, smudged and super -imposed, I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the revisional order. Accordingly, O.J.C. No.18512 of 1998 being devoid of any merit is dismissed.