BEER KAUR Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 13/9/2024 (Annexure P-7) whereby the application under Sec. 45 read with Sec. 73 of the Indian Evidence Act along with Sec. 39(1), 72 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as '2023 Act') for granting permission for comparison of thumb impressions of the petitioner Beer Kaur and signatures of her attorney Sukhwinder Kaur has been allowed by the trial Court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dtd. 4/5/2018 which as per the case of the plaintiffs was executed by the defendant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') in favour of the present respondents/plaintiffs with respect to land measuring 49 kanals 10 marlas. In the plaint, it was stated that the defendant had agreed to sell the land in question in favour of the plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs.54,00,000.00 and at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell, the defendant received Rs.10,00,000.00 from the plaintiffs as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed on 4/11/2018. In para 2 of the plaint, it was further averred that on 21/11/2018, with the mutual understanding between the defendant and the plaintiffs, the date for the execution of the sale deed was extended up to 25/12/2018 and that an endorsement was made on the back of the original agreement to sell in the presence of the witnesses and at that time, the defendant agreed to execute the sale deed regarding the land in question on 25/12/2018. Further averments had been made to highlight that the defendant had backed out from the same and thus, the suit was filed. The defendant filed a written statement in which pleas were taken that she had never executed any agreement to sell dtd. 4/5/2018 and that the extension of time on 21/11/2018 was also not executed by her and that the said endorsement was a forged and fabricated document. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs denying the averments made in the written statement.

(3.) On 9/9/2024, an application (Annexure P-5) was filed by the plaintiffs under Sec. 45 read with Sec. 73 of the Indian Evidence Act along with Sec. 39(1), 72 of the 2023 Act for granting permission for comparison of thumb impressions of defendant Beer Kaur and signatures of her attorney Sukhwinder Kaur, with a further direction to defendant Beer Kaur to come present in the Court for taking a specimen of her thumb impressions by an expert. In the said application, it was pleaded that the agreement and the endorsement had been denied by the defendant and that the attorney of defendant Beer Kaur, her daughter Sukhwinder Kaur had signed in English on the agreement to sell (Ex.P1) and had also given her mobile number on the said agreement to sell and during the course of cross-examination, the said Sukhwinder Kaur had admitted that the mobile number which has been given was her mobile number on the agreement to sell (Ex.P1). It was further averred that for adjudicating the matter in controversy and to bring the truth on the file, the comparison of the thumb impression of the defendant Beer Kaur and the signatures of her attorney are very necessary and that since Sukhwinder Kaur had admitted in her cross-examination that defendant Beer Kaur is alive at present, thus, it was prayed that she may come to the Court for giving the specimen of her thumb impressions. A reply was filed to the said application by the defendant in which it was stated that the agreement to sell dtd. 4/5/2018 was never entered into by the petitioner/defendant and the same was a forged and fabricated document.