Himachal Pradesh High Court
CR/133/2017 on 28 December 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CR No. 133 of 2017
Decided on : 28.12.2018
Nachhattar Kaur and others
…Petitioners
Versus
Dawarki and others
…Respondents ___________________________________________
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes ________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Basant Thakur, Advocate for respondents No. 8(a) to 8(b), 9(a) to 9( c) and 10(a) to 10 ( c).
Mr. Shriyak Sharda, Advocate, for respondents No. 11 and
12. Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)
The instant petition is directed against the adversarial finding(s) recorded by the learned trial Court, vis-à-vis the petitioner herein, upon, an application cast under the provisions of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, wherethrough an apt leave is sought, (a) for sending for comparison, to, the Finger Prints Bureau, the thumb impression(s), obtained by the police agency, of, deceased Akki, vis-à-vis, the thumb impression(s) of the afore, occurring, on, the gift deed, other than, the one borne in gift deed No. 991, gift deed whereof is stated to be lying in the office of Sub-Registrar, Nalagarh. A close reading of the impugned order, discloses, that earlier also the afore endeavour(s) of the aggrieved petitioner, hence, proving abortive(s), for, want of existence of clear thumb impression(s), of, the afore deceased on the document concerned, wherewith, the requisite comparison(s), were, required to be made. The extant endeavour of the aggrieved petitioner would beget success, upon, the apposite document(s), hence carrying, the, relevant clear thumb impression(s), and wherewith, the requisite comparison is strived, reiteratedly rather palpably demonstrating qua hence, it, embodying therein, the, clear/un-smudged thumb impression(s), of, deceased Akki. However, the document other than the gift deed No. 991, as stated, to be lying in the office of Sub-Registrar, Nalagarh, and, espoused to be carrying the clear thumb impression(s) of deceased Akki, for hence enabling the Finger Prints Bureau, to make an apt comparison, with the thumb impression of the afore, as obtained by the police agency, (a) cannot be befittingly accepted, for the requisite purpose, (b) as a clear finding is recorded by the learned trial Judge, qua copy thereof, also containing ratehr unclear/smudged thumb impression(s), of, deceased Akki, rendering, the afore endeavour to be futile, and, abortive.
2. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, the same is dismissed. The impugned order, of, 13.6.2017, pronounced by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division, Nalagarh, District Solan, is maintained and affirmed. All the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge December 28, 2018 Kalpana