Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nathu Ram vs Charano @ Charanjit Kaur And Ors on 10 August, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
SAO No.47 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.08.2017
Nathu Ram …..Appellant
Vs
Charano @ Charanjit Kaur and ors
….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
The trial Court further held that the Handwriting Expert further gave the opinion that thumb impression at Mark Q1 on interim order dated 31.10.1992 differ from the thumb impression at Mark Q2 to Q6. Therefore, as per the opinion of the Handwriting Expert even in the case titled as Nathu Ram vs. Charno, two different person on two different occasion were impersonated as Charno in the Court. The trial Court on the aforesaid parameters, dismissed the suit vide the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2011. Feeling aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed before the lower Appellate Court. [5]. The lower Appellate Court held that though the plaintiff had examined PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, who opined that the disputed signature on written statement does not tally with the admitted signatures/standard signatures of Charano. In such like circumstances, Sh. Amar Singh Bhullar, Advocate who is a material witness can identify the plaintiff in order to dispel any suspicion and can also prove the allegations of the plaintiff. Since Sh. Amar Singh Bhullar, Advocate has not been examined, therefore, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of permission to lead additional evidence was allowed in order to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment effectively. The application was allowed 4 of 7 for substantial cause. The satisfaction was recorded by the lower Appellate Court that the additional evidence so prayed by the appellant would enable the Court to pronounce the judgment and is necessary for advancing the substantial cause of justice. [6]. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff did not lead any evidence in affirmative so as to dispel the alleged cloud on the decree dated 12.03.1993. Issue No.7-A specifically was wide enough to cover the issue of alleged decree being fraudulent. Once the plaintiff did not lead any evidence in affirmative, she was not entitled to lead any additional evidence at appellate stage as she was not entitled to fill lacuna in the present case. Learned counsel relied upon Youdhister vs. Siri Ram and others, 1996(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 706.
[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. [8]. PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert has given his opinion to the following effect:-
“The disputed thumb impression Mark Q1 is different from the other disputed thumb impressions Mark-Q2 to Q6. The disputed thumb impressions Mark-Q1 to Q-6 are different from the standard/specimen thumb impressions of Charno Mark R1 to R5 (R.T.I.) & L1, L2 (L.T.I.) i.e. disputed thumb impressions Mark-Q1 to Q6 are not affixed by the ladies, who affixed specimen thumb impressions Mark R1 to R5 5 of 7 (R.T.I.) & L1, L2 (L.T.I.).”