RAJIV AND OTHERS Vs. MAYA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 06.05.2013 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kurukshetra whereby application filed by the petitioners for sending the documents bearing disputed thumb impression of Jeet Singh (since deceased) and Smt. Shakuntla to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal for comparison with their admitted thumb impressions on registered mortgage deed no. 362/1 and 361/1 dated 24.05.1971 has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners relies upon proviso to Order 26 Rule 10 -A of CPC and judgments rendered in Doddaveeregowda vs. Basavaraju : 2010 (2) CCC 221 and Bhagirati Sahu and others vs. Akapati Bhaskar Patra : AIR 2001 Ori 185 to contend that when there is a disputed thumb impression, the Court is competent to send the same for comparison by hand -writing expert.

(3.) THE petitioners are defendants. There is a specific provision to lead evidence by the parties. Since the petitioners have to be afforded opportunity to lead evidence, they can very well examine any handwriting expert to compare the disputed thumb impressions of Jeet Singh (since deceased) and Smt. Shakuntla with their standard thumb impressions. The petitioners can rebut the evidence led by respondent no. 1 -plaintiff. When there is a specific provision for leading evidence, the provision laid down under Order 26 Rule 10 -A of CPC will not come into play. It is only the satisfaction of the Court and when it deems fit in the circumstances of the case, it can send the disputed thumb impressions/signatures to a third person for examination. The process of the Court cannot be allowed to be used to collect evidence by appointing local commission for the parties.