Appellate courts should not allow parties to reopen trials or introduce fresh expert evidence to fill lacunae in the evidentiary record when adequate opportunities were provided during the initial trial.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.11.2019, passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar (Annexure P-5) vide which the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for taking her specimen thumb impressions in the Court for getting comparison done by Handwriting and Finger Print Expert has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and had in the said suit challenged the judgment and decree dated 08.02.1996 passed in Civil Suit No.144-C of 27.01.1996 titled as “Anil etc. Vs. Smt. Phoolpati etc.” passed by the Court of Shri S.K. Kaushik, the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hansi, and the subsequent mutation etc. on the ground of impersonation. It is further submitted that the petitioner had got the handwriting and finger print expert examined as PW-2 but the report of handwriting and finger print expert was rejected on the ground that the standard thumb impressions of the petitioner/plaintiff on the plaint, power of attorney etc. used for comparison were not taken before the Court. It is stated that in view of the same, the suit was dismissed and thereafter the plaintiff had filed an appeal and along with the said appeal she had moved an application for taking specific thumb impressions of the appellant therein/Phoolpati before the Court for getting the same compared by the handwriting and finger print expert.

3. It is submitted that the said application, filed before the 1st Appellate Court, has been dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court vide the impugned order which is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is argued that it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the disputed thumb impressions affixed in the written statement and in the statement made in the proceedings which culminated into the passing of the alleged consent decree, were actually not her thumb impressions and to prove the same it is necessary for her to get another handwriting expert report in accordance with law. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Rama Avatar Soni Vs. Mahanta Laxmidhar Das and ors. ” reported as 2018(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 894.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7

4. Learned senior counsel for respondents No.6 and 7, on the other hand, has submitted that the said application, filed before the Appellate Court, is only to fill up the lacunae and in case such an application is allowed, then, it would result in de novo trial. It is further submitted that the petitioner and her counsel were well aware of the issues which were framed and sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner/plaintiff and her counsel to lead the evidence and the plaintiff/petitioner had examined a handwriting and finger print expert as PW2 also. It is submitted that the defendants, after taking into consideration the entire evidence, had led the defence evidence and the plaintiff, after having lost the case, cannot now fill up the lacunae and reopen the entire matter and in case such an application is allowed, then, there would be no end/finality to the case.

5. It is further submitted that a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court