CR 2671/2022 (O&M)

Page 1 of 4

Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR 2671/2022 (O&M)

Date of decision: 18.01.2023

Nazar Singh and others

………..Petitioners

Vs.

Jagraj Singh and others.

………..Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-

Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order

dated 7.3.2022 passed by Ld. Civil judge (Jr. Div.) Barnala whereby the

application of the petitioner/defendant for taking permission of the court to take

the photographs from the file with regard to thumb impressions of

petitioner/defendant-applicant Nazar Singh and deceased Gurjeet Singh and

signatures of petitioner-defendant Sukhjant Singh for being examined from the

Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert, has been dismissed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

respondent No. 2 had brought on record one document Ex. D-1 purportedly

executed by the petitioner No. 1 herein with the consent of his legal heirs,

pertaining to the transfer of the suit land in favour of respondent No. 2. It is

submitted that application with regard to production of original document Ex.D1

already stands dismissed as the respondent/plaintiff denied having a copy of the

original of the same, and therefore, the petitioners were left with no option but

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI

2023.01.27 16:01

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR 2671/2022 (O&M)

Page 2 of 4

Page 2 of 4

to move the present application for comparing the signatures/thumb impressions

of the petitioners from the photocopy of Ex.D1. It is submitted that grave

injustice will be caused to the petitioners if they are not allowed to prove thumb

impressions of the petitioners from the photocopy of the document Ex. D1.

Heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners.

In this regard, relevant findings of the Trial Court are reproduced

hereunder:-

“It is pertinent to mention here that in the present

case, the documents on which the questioned thumb impressions

and signature are appended is a photocopy and the original of the

same is not on record. Defendants-applicants Nos.4 to 6 earlier

filed an application for directions to defendant-respondent No.1 to

produce the original of the same on record. The said application

was dismissed by the Court, vide order dated 17.8.2019 as

defendant-respondent No.1 denied the possession of the original.

It is settled law that a Photostat copy of only that document can be

taken into evidence and can be read into, which is not disputed

between the parties or the original of which has been proved to be

lost or destroyed. In the present case also, the photocopy of the

alleged agreement dated 2.9.2004 can only be read into evidence

only if the party relying on the same is able to prove the existence

and loss of its original. Merely because the other party denied the

possession of original it cannot be presumed that original is lost.

Meaning thereby, from the copy from which the defendants-

applicants Nos.4 to 6 prayed that the photographs of disputed

thumb impressions and the signatures be taken will only be

admissible in evidence if the existence and loss of the original is

proved. Mere exhibition of the same on file as Ex.D1 does not

mean that the same is proved on file as per the provisions of Indian

Evidence Act. This Court is of the view that the document, whose

admissibility in itself is in question, cannot be used by any party

for any purpose and can in no way create a valid and admissible

evidence in favour of any of the party to the suit.

Furthermore, no law prescribes that an Expert

opinion can be sought from taking photographs by Expert from a

Xerox copy of the document. Learned counsel for the defendants-

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI

2023.01.27 16:01

I attest to t