Roshni Devi v. Kamla

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 25.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2026 Date of Uploading : 01.04.2026 Smt. Roshni Devi ......Petitioner Vs.

Smt. Kamla ......Respondent Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced?

YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present :

Mr. Mayur Karkra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. V.K.Pujara, Advocate, for the respondent.

**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1.

The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside order of dated 04.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat, whereby application moved by the petitioner for taking finger and thumb impression of the defendant and for calling the report from fingerprint expert has been dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat, has wrongly dismissed

-2the application filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 04.02.2019. He prays that the present petition be allowed.

3.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the application filed by the petitioner has rightly been dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be dismissed.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case file with their able assistance. 5.

A perusal of the file shows that petitioner has filed suit for specific performance with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the respondent. The respondent on notice appeared and filed written statement denying the sale of house to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application for taking finger and thumb impression of respondent by fingerprint expert to prove the sale agreement, which was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat. As is observed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat, vide order dated 04.02.2019, that respondent in her written statement stated that she has not executed any agreement in favour of the petitioner, therefore, to prove the same, petitioner is required to examine fingerprint expert. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the application of the petitioner for taking finger and thumb impression and for calling of report from the fingerprint expert is allowed.

-37.

In view of the same, to deliver complete justice to the parties, application filed by the petitioner before learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat, for taking finger and thumb impression of the respondent and for calling the report from fingerprint expert is allowed. Order dated 04.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat, to the extent of dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, is set aside.

8.

Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed 9.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 27.03.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No