Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs Vipan Kumar And Another on 1 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:042779
121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1903-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 01.04.2024
Raj Kumar ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Vipan Kumar & Anr. ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Ms. Prarthana Duggal, Advocate for
Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure
P-8) passed by the Executing Court whereby the application filed by the
petitioner for permission to get the agreement and receipt dated 01.05.2009
as well as receipt dated 04.02.2004 examined from Forensic Science
Laboratory and opinion of Forensic Expert to determine the age of the
papers of the aforesaid documents, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is
necessary to get the documents examined from a Forensic Expert for
determining the age of the ink and for comparison of the signatures on the
aforesaid documents with the admitted standard signatures of the executant.
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:042779
CR-1903-2024 (O&M) -2-
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In the present case the petitioner, who is the third party
objector, is claiming his possession over the suit property on the basis of the
aforesaid documents i.e. agreement and receipt dated 01.05.2009 as well as
receipt dated 04.02.2004. The petitioner herein filed an application for
permission to get the said documents examined from FSL and opinion of a
Forensic Expert for determining the age of the ink as well as comparison of
the signatures. The decree-holder has denied the fact that the petitioner has
any concern with the possession of the disputed house/suit property and that
the objections have been filed in collusion with the JDs. The Executing
Court while dismissing the application has held that the petitioner is trying
to prove his possession on the basis of the aforesaid documents i.e
agreement and receipt dated 01.05.2009 as well as receipt dated 04.02.2004
for which he cannot seek the assistance of the Court. The learned counsel for
the petitioner has not been able to convince this Court that the said
documents would in any manner prove the possession of the petitioner over
the suit property. Further, there is no occasion for the Court at this stage to
send the documents to FSL when the entire case set up by the third party
objector i.e. petitioner herein is that he is in possession of the suit property
on the basis of the said documents. The onus to prove the said documents
would, therefore, be upon the petitioner. The Executing Court has rightly
dismissed the application which calls for no interference by this Court.
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:042779
CR-1903-2024 (O&M) -3-
5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
01.04.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
