Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sona Ram And Anr. vs Mulakh Raj Alias Lekh Raj And Anr. on 18 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999) 123 PLR 811
Author: V Jhanji
Bench: V Jhanji
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record, I do not find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. In the plaint, plaintiff specifically alleged that the defendant procured decree by impersonation. It was averred that neither the plaintiff-thumb marked any plaint nor filed any suit nor engaged any counsel nor appeared in Court. Defendant, in order to prove that it was not a case of impersonation but the plaintiff himself had filed the suit, examined Anil Kumar Gupta, Document Expert and got compared the admitted thumb impressions of the plaintiff with the disputed thumb impressions on the plaint, application dated 7.6.1991 and the Vakalatnama. Anil Kumar Gupta, Expert vide his report opined that the disputed thumb impressions, Mark Q1 to Q4 and standard thumb impressions, Mark S1 and S2 are identical and affixed by one and the same person. Excepting the bald assertion of the plaintiff that he had not filed the suit or thumb marked the plaint or Vakalatnama, there is no evidence that some one else other than the plaintiff had filed the suit or thumb marked the application or the Vakalatnama. If at all, it was a case of impersonation, it was for the plaintiff to explain as to under what circumstances his thumb impressions came to be appended on the plaint, the application and the Vakalatnama. Plaintiff, as a matter of fact, has miserably failed to discharge the onus which heavily lay upon him. Resultantly, the appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed.