The main legal point established is that the thumb impression should be taken in the presence of both sides' advocates as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 9.2.2012 passed by the Principal District Court, Namakkal, in I.A.No.2 of 2012 in A.S.No.105 of 2011, this civil revision is filed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The facts as stood uncurtained in this matter could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

(i) O.S.No.18 of 2008 was filed by the revision petitioners herein for declaration and for injunction in respect of an immovable property. During the pendency of the suit, expert opinion was obtained in respect of the purported signature of the Power of Attorney of the vendor in the concerned sale deed, executed in favour of D1 and D2 therein. Subsequently, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

(ii) D1 and D2 filed the appeal in A.S.No.105 of 2011 as against the judgment and decree passed in the said suit. The said A.S. is still pending.

(iii) While so, I.A.105 of 2011 in A.S.No.105 of 2011 was filed by the same D1 & D2 for getting the left thumb impression of the executant of the aforesaid sale deed, which was executed in their favour and it was allowed on 23.12.2011, As against which, C.R.P. was filed for nothing but to be dismissed.

(iv) Thereafter, it appears, Dw4-the person who purportedly executed the impugned sale deed appeared for the purpose of giving his left thumb impression to the Sub-Registrar concerned, as per the the earlier order dated 23.12.2011 passed in I.A.No.105 of 2011 and at that time, the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 was present, but the counsel for the plaintiffs was not present. Even then, the Sub-Registrar purportedly obtained the left thumb impression of D.W.4 and sent it to the Court; whereupon the Court, passed the order, vide order dated 9.2.2012 in I.A.No.2 of 2012, for sending the thumb impression in the said sale deed concerned, to the expert.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 9.2.2012 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2012, this revision has been filed on various grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs would pyramid his argument by contending that absolutely there is no authenticity in the process of obtaining the left thumb impression of D.W.4 as it was purportedly taken in the absence of the counsel for the plaintiffs and that itself is against the order dated 23.12.2012 passed in I.A.No.105 of 2011.

6. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents/D1 & D2, in a bid to make mincemeat of the argument as put forth by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would pilot his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(i) D.W.4 is normally residing in Malaysia and only for the purpose of giving his sample left thumb impression, he came over to India, but on that day there was boycott of the Court by the Advocates and since he was bound to return back to Malaysia on the same day evening, he appeared on the same day before the Sub-Registrar concerned; however, the learned counsel for D1 and D2 was present, but the counsel for the plaintiffs was absent.

(ii) There was no fault on the part of the defendants or D.W.4 in that process.

7. At this juncture I would like to refer to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

"Sec.73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved – In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger-impressions.

8.