Back
1984 Supreme(P&H) 437
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sodhi, J.
Sheo Narain
Versus
Rawat
Civil Revision No. 1284 of 1984,
Civil MISCELLANEOUS No. 2305 of 1984,
Decided On : JULY 23, 1984
The court has the power to direct any person to give specimen thumb impressions for comparison with disputed ones, as per the provisions of Ss.45 and 73 of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Thumb Impressions - Specimen Thumb Impressions - The court has the power to direct any person to give specimen thumb impressions for comparison with disputed ones, as per the provisions of Ss.45 and 73 of the Evidence Act. The trial court's refusal to grant the request for obtaining specimen thumb impressions was untenable and the order was set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff challenged the trial court's order declining the request for obtaining the specimen thumb impressions of the defendant for comparison with the disputed thumb impressions on an application.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court's reasoning was found to be flawed as the court has the power to direct any person to give specimen thumb impressions for comparison with disputed ones, as per the provisions of Ss.45 and 73 of the Evidence Act. The impugned order of the trial court was set aside and the court was directed to deal with the application in accordance with the law. The Revision Petition was allowed with costs.
Issues: The main issue was the trial court's refusal to grant the request for obtaining specimen thumb impressions for comparison.
Ratio Decidendi: The court has the power to direct any person to give specimen thumb impressions for comparison with disputed ones, as per the provisions of Ss.45 and 73 of the Evidence Act. The trial court's refusal to grant the request was untenable.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the trial court was set aside and the court was directed to deal with the application in accordance with the law. The Revision Petition was allowed with costs.
1. What has been challenged in this Revision Petition is the wholly untenable order of the trial Court, declining the request of the plaintiff for obtaining the specimen thumb impressions of the defendant for comparison with the disputed thumb impressions on an application. In turning down this prayer, the trial Court observed, "the Court can direct any of the parties to give his specimen thumb impression or the handwriting as the case may be, but this power is limited for the satisfaction of the Court and not beyond that". It was further stated, "this Court cannot direct any of the parties to give the specimen thumb impressions or the handwriting as the case may be for the purpose of evidence of any of the parties".
2. The fallacy in the reasoning adopted by the trial Court is brought out by the judgment of the Division Bench in Guru Nanak Construction Company V/s. Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills, Jaitu, 1976 Cur LJ (Civ) 447, where after setting out the provisions of Ss.45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, it was observed, "the bare reading of both these provisions shows that the Court has been empowered to direct any person to give specimen signature or handwriting with a view to get the same. compared with the disputed ones. This power may be exercised by the Court for its own satisfaction or even on an application being made by any party to the proceedings. If these sections are interpreted to mean that this can only be done by the Court for its own satisfaction that would be to perpetuate injustice."
3. There can, thus, be no manner of doubt that the Court was indeed empowered to call upon a party to give his specimen thumb impressions and this request could not be declined merely on the ground that it had been made by a party to the litigation and could be used as evidence by such party.
4. The impugned order of the trial Court is accordingly hereby set aside and the Court is directed to deal with the application in accordance with law.
5. This Revision Petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs.200/-.
