AJMER SINGH Vs. BALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-defendant No.1 against the impugned orders dtd. 17/8/2016, 9/9/2016 and 28/9/2016 (Annexure P-7, P-9 and P-10 respectively) passed in the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 30/11/2009 (Anenxure P-1). The petitioner-defendant denied the execution of the aforementioned agreement and stated to be a forged document. The trial Court framed six issues including issue No.4 with regard to forgery and fabrication.

(2.) Both the parties have examined experts. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed report of the Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, which revealed that thumb impression were sufficiently ink smudged, cause of action accrued to move application dtd. 10/8/2015 (P-2) by the petitioner-defendant No.1 for sending the original agreement, specimen and standard thumb impression of petitioner-defendant to Govt. Forensic Laboratory at New Delhi or Shimla.

(3.) The aforementioned application was allowed vide order dtd. 25/1/2016 (Annexure P-3) and the petitioner-defendant was given direction to give specimen thumb impressions and place on record receipt of deposit of requisite fee with the CFSL. The department of CFSL did not accept the money, in view of the fact that CFSL, New Delhi vide order dtd. 3/2/2016 (P-4) showed their handicapness owing to non-availability of the facility. Another application dtd. 18/4/2016 (P-5) was filed for sending the agreement dtd. 30/11/2009 for comparing the thumb impression of petitioner-defendant and the same was also allowed vide order dtd. 1/8/2016 (P-6), operative part of which reads as under:-