OM PARKASH MEHTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition stating that he being an advocate and having been engaged by his client to give an opinion regarding the authenticity/veracity/genuineness of the Will applied for a copy thereof in the office of Sub-Registrar. The certified copy was supplied to him but the petitioner insisted upon making the document available in order to further establish its veracity/genuineness by getting the thumb impressions compared by the fingerprint expert.

(2.) The prayer having been declined by the competent authority, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. Making a grievance of the action of the respondents reference has been made to Section 57 of the Registration Act, which is extracted herebelow :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he being an agent is entitled to copy of the document and is also entitled to get the same inspected from the fingerprint expert to get an opinion about the veracity/genuineness of the thumb impressions.