Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simarjit Kaur vs Mohinder Kaur And Ors. on 1 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)120PLR562
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
ORDER V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by Simarjit Kaur (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') directed, against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ajnala dated 21.7.1997. By virtue of the impugned order the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the respondents for permission to take the photographs of thumb impressions of Surjit Kaur appearing on the sale deed dated 1.3.1985 as well as on the will in dispute dated 8.7.1991. The application was also allowed for comparison of thumb impressions of Surjit Kaur on the will dated 8.7.1991 with the thumb impressions on the registered sale deed dated 1.3.1985.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the said order alleging that earlier a similar application has been filed which was dismissed on 29.4.1996 and the subsequent application in this regard was not maintainable. The learned trial court while noting the said fact held that at that time the respondents had not produced any evidence regarding execution of sale deed. Now they have brought the evidence on the record regarding execution of the sale deed. In view of the changed circumstances, the application was allowed.
3. The petitioner has reproduced the copy of the order dated 29.4.1996. Perusal of it shows that the petitioner has set up a will alleged to have been executed by Surjit Kaur dated 8.7.1991. The plaintiff-respondents were contending that the will is a fabricated document. Surjit Kaur deceased executed a will in favour of Shingara Singh now represented by his legal representatives. It was pointed that the sale deed bears the thumb impressions of Surjit Kaur. When that application was considered by the learned trial court, it was held that at that time the petitioner has not admitted the sale deed and, therefore, the alleged thumb impressions of Surjit Kaur cannot be described to be her thumb impressions.
4. After the evidence bad been produced, keeping in view the same an application was filed for permission to take photographs of the thumb impressions on the will purported to have been executed by Surjit Kaur and on the sale deed. Request was made for comparison of the same. As already mentioned above, the learned trial court held that at that time, the respondents had not led any evidence which has now been produced and keeping in view the changed circumstances, the application was allowed.
5. It is abundantly clear that when earlier application was dismissed, the petitioner's claim was that the application was premature because there was no evidence that Surjit Kaur had appended her thumb impression on the sale deed. It was in this backdrop that earlier application was dismissed.
6. At that time the logic was that there was no evidence on the record about execution of sale deed by Surjit Kaur. Now the respondents have to lead evidence in rebuttal. The interest of justice did require that the thumb impressions on the sale deed and the will are compared. It would help the Court to arrive at a proper conclusion. In view of the subsequent facts, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned order. When order is passed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, this Court would be reluctant and slow to interfere.
For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.