Abdul Sattar Vs. Bashir

Abdul Sattar vs Bashir

Disposition Petition allowed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Feb 03, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/617924

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/617924
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Decided On: Feb 03, 2006
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 253 of 2004
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 227

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Sattar

Advocate S.S. Dinarpur, Adv.

Respondent

Bashir

Advocate Anil Kshetarpal, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 227
Reported In: (2006)143PLR412

Excerpt

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - .....satish kumar mittal, j.1. the plaintiff has filed this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india for setting aside the order dated 6.11.2003, passed by additional civil judge (senior division), jagadhri, whereby the application of the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent-defendant to give his specimen thumb impression in order to seek fresh expert report has been dismissed.2. in this case, the petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of agreement of sale dated 2.7.1999 with regard to land measuring 16 kanals 14 marlas, which was agreed by the respondent to be sold to the petitioner. the respondent, in this written statement, has denied the execution of the said agreement as well as the receipt of the earnest amount.3. in order to prove thumb impression of the respondent on the agreement, the petitioner moved an application for taking specimen thumb impressions of the respondent, which was allowed and the specimen thumb impression of the respondent was taken by the document and hand-writing expert shri ram dhan babbar. subsequently, report was given by him, copy of which has been placed on record as annexure p-3. in the said report, it has been stated that the disputed thumb mark is mostly smudged and only its right portion is comparable, therefore, the specimen and thumb mark does not serve the purpose of comparison. hence, it was requested that a fresh specimen of left thumb of bashir (respondent) fully rolled and plain up to the nail may be taken for comparison.4. after that report, the petitioner moved application for issuing direction to the respondent to give his specimen thumb impression. the said application has been dismissed by the trial court, while observing as under:3. heard. the perusal of the report given by the handwriting expert reveals that questioned thumb impressions on the agreement dated 2.7.99 are identical with this specimen left thumb print of bashir mark-s-1 taken in the.....

Full Judgment

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 6.11.2003, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, whereby the application of the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent-defendant to give his specimen thumb impression in order to seek fresh expert report has been dismissed.

2. In this case, the petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of agreement of sale dated 2.7.1999 with regard to land measuring 16 kanals 14 marlas, which was agreed by the respondent to be sold to the petitioner. The respondent, in this written statement, has denied the execution of the said agreement as well as the receipt of the earnest amount.

3. In order to prove thumb impression of the respondent on the agreement, the petitioner moved an application for taking specimen thumb impressions of the respondent, which was allowed and the specimen thumb impression of the respondent was taken by the Document and Hand-writing expert Shri Ram Dhan Babbar. Subsequently, report was given by him, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. In the said report, it has been stated that the disputed thumb mark is mostly smudged and only its right portion is comparable, therefore, the specimen and thumb mark does not serve the purpose of comparison. Hence, it was requested that a fresh specimen of left thumb of Bashir (respondent) fully rolled and plain up to the nail may be taken for comparison.

4. After that report, the petitioner moved application for issuing direction to the respondent to give his specimen thumb impression. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court, while observing as under:

3. Heard. The perusal of the report given by the handwriting expert reveals that questioned thumb impressions on the agreement dated 2.7.99 are identical with this specimen left thumb print of Bashir Mark-S-1 taken in the Court. Vide para 9 of the report he has made report that he has not found any point of differences of fundamental nature in formation of ridges and their sequence in the disputed thumb prints marked Q-1 to Q-5 and specimen thumb print marked S-1. The report of the handwriting expert is clear qua disputed thumb impression. I do not find any ground to allow the second application of the plaintiff for seeking specimen thumb impressions of the defendant on the same footing, which is not maintainable, in the eye of law. Hence application is dismissed. Now the case is adjourned to 25.2.2004, for evidence of the plaintiff at own responsibility.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the impugned order as well as the petition.

6. In my opinion, the trial Court has committed grave illegality while rejecting prayer of the petitioner. In this case, the respondent has denied execution of the agreement, for which the instant suit for specific performance has been filed. Earlier, on the direction of the Court, specimen thumb impressions of the respondent were taken and compared by the Handwriting and Finger prints expert and he submitted the report with the request that specimen thumb impressions of the respondent be taken again so that proper report can be made regarding comparison of both the thumb impression. If the expert wants that fresh thumb impressions are required, then the same cannot be denied on the ground that earlier the thumb impressions were taken. It is always in the interest of justice that every party should be given full opportunity to prove his case. The comparison of thumb impression of the respondent with the thumb impression on the agreement is the relevant and material issue in the suit. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner, who is plaintiff should be provided full opportunity to prove his case.

7. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.11.2003, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to take fresh specimen thumb impression of the respondent.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2006 Same Parties Abdul Sattar vs Bashir Same Subject Civil Same Judge Satish Kumar Mittal, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 227

Civil