SH. PANNA LAL Vs. SMT. HARBANS KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is directed against the order dated September 20, 1977 passed by Sub Judge First Class, Jullundur (Rent Controller) whereby he declined the prayer of the tenant (petitioner herein) for having the thumb marks on the power of Attorney, allegedly being executed by him in favour of Sohan Singh, Pleader, compared from Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur. The trial Court declined the prayer on the ground that Sohan Singh, Pleader, had been examined by Panna Lal tenant, in the proceedings for setting aside the ex parte order, and the tenant in question did not get him declared hostile. Mr. S.P. Jain, Counsel for the petitioner (tenant herein) has stated that the tenant signs in English, so there is no question of his having put his thumb mark on the Power of Attorney in question. It is suggested that the landlord himself must have got clandestinely engaged Sohan Singh, Pleader, on behalf of tenant in order to obtain ex parte decision in his favour.

(2.) Counsel for the respondent landlord has on the other hand stated that the landlord would not be so foolish, for even on the rent deed, the signatures of the tenant are in English and if he was to forge the Power of Attorney, then he would forge his signature thereon in English rather than forge it by obtaining somebody else's thumb mark thereon, for it is easier to have compared the two thumb marks than the forged signatures.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has urged that once the tenant had disputed the thumb impression on the Power of Attorney in favour of Sohan Singh, Pleader, it was the duty of the Rent Controller to obtain the report of the Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, and have the thumb impression compared and permit that evidence on the record.