IMPORTANT POINT
Science of examination of thumb impression is a perfect science.

Debi Prosad Dey, J.—Radharani Chowdhury since deceased executed a Will during her lifetime and appointed Tarak Chowdhury and Sambhu Chowdhury (opposite parties of this application) both sons of Panna Lal Chowdhury as executor of the said Will. Probate was duly granted in Act 39 case being no.13 of 1996 in favour of the aforesaid opposite parties. Probate in respect of the Will of Radharani Chowdhury was granted in favour of Tarak and Sambhu Chowdhury in Act 39 case no.13 of 1996.

2. Smt. Jashoda Chowdhury wife of Late Charu Chowdhury initiated a revocation case being case no.164 of 2004 against the aforesaid opposite parties for revocation of the Probate granted in Act 39 case being no.13 of 1996 on the ground that such Probate was obtained by the opposite parties without serving any summons/notices/intimations upon the petitioner and the opposite parties have obtained such Probate by practicing fraud upon the learned trial Court. On inspection, the petitioner came to know that one Acknowledgment Due Card was incorporated in the Probate proceeding showing forged/manufactured left thumb impression of the petitioner said to have been attested by one Narayan Chowdhury.

3. The opposite parties have filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code with a prayer for comparing the left thumb impression of the petitioner namely Smt. Jashoda Chowdhury appearing in the Acknowledgment Due Card with her admitted left thumb impression appearing in the two vokalatnamas filed in Court on 08.12.2004 and 19th July, 2010 as well as left thumb impression of Jashoda appearing on the deposition sheet of her own evidence before this Court and on the petition of Act 39 case filed by her. Learned trial Court ultimately allowed said application and directed the Director, Finger Print Bureau, CID, DIB, Bhawani Bhavan to compare the said left thumb impression of Smt. Jashoda Chowdhury and to submit report.

4. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with such order Smt. Jashoda Chowdhury (herein after referred to as petitioner only), has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India solely on the ground that the alleged left thumb impression appearing in acknowledgment due card has not been admitted in evidence as exhibit and accordingly learned trial Court was not justified in referring the said document for comparison without admitting the said document as exhibit in evidence.

5. Learned Counsel Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that no notice/summons was ever served upon Jashoda Chowdhury while granting Probate in favour of the opposite parties and the alleged left thumb impression appearing in the acknowledgment due card has been manufactured/forged by the opposite parties.

6. Mr. Bhattacherjee further contended that learned trial Court committed mistake in referring the said left thumb impression appearing in the acknowledgment due card along with admitted left thumb impression of the petitioner to the expert for comparison since the alleged left thumb impression appearing on the acknowledgment due card has not yet been admitted in evidence as exhibit. According to the petitioner, learned trial Court should not have referred the left thumb impression appearing on the acknowledgment due card since the said document has not yet been admitted in evidence.

7. Learned Advocate Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has however supported the order being no.44 dated 13.03.2015 passed by learned trial Court on the ground that the entire defence of the opposite parties as well as the case of the petitioner would be decided by the report of the expert regarding the genuinity of the left thumb impression of the petitioner appearing in the Acknowledgment Due Card. In support of his contention Mr. Mallick has referred the decisions reported in (Jetha Ram vs. the State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC 23.) and (Smt. Ram Bai vs