Teja Singh and Another vs Parkash Kaur and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 1.2.2010, Annexure P/5 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Moga thereby allowing application Annexure P/3 moved by the Plaintiffs for inspection of file and for taking of photographs by Fingerprint Expert.

The Plaintiffs'' case is that the Defendants have produced writing/compromise Ex. D1 allegedly executed by Sukhmander Singh Plaintiff No. 2 (Respondent No. 6) and to depict that the said compromise does not bear thumb impression of Sukhmander Singh, it is necessary to get the opinion and evidence of the Fingerprint Expert file and was required to be inspected and photographs were required to be taken.

Defendants resisted the aforesaid application by alleging that Sukhmander Singh Plaintiff No. 2 has no locus standi to file the application as he has not filed any suit. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/5 allowed the aforesaid application. Feeling aggrieved, the Defendants have preferred the instant revision petition.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners vehemently contended that the suit purports to have been instituted by three Plaintiffs i.e. Sukhdev Singh Plaintiff No. 1 (since deceased and represented by Respondents No. 1 to 5), Sukhmander Singh Plaintiff No. 2/Respondent No. 6 and Swaran Singh Plaintiff No. 3/Respondent No. 7 but the plaint and vakaltnama were signed by Sukhdev Singh Plaintiff No. 1 and Swaran Singh Plaintiff No. 3 only and not by Sukhmander Singh Plaintiff No. 2 and therefore, the suit was instituted by Plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 only and not by Sukhmander Singh Plaintiff No. 2. It was next contended that application Annexure P/3 has been signed by Sukhmander Singh alone who did not sign the plaint and vakaltnama and therefore, the application is not tenable.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that Sukhmander Singh is also attorney of Jagdeep Singh Respondent No. 2 and for this reason Sukhmander Singh also had locus standi to file the application. It was also contended that the application Annexure P/3 has also been signed by counsel for the Plaintiffs and for this reason as well, the application is tenable.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The question whether the suit has been instituted by Sukhmander Singh Plaintiff No. 2 or not would be adjudicated upon by the trial court in accordance with law, if any such question arises for determination at the time of final disposal of the suit. Suffice to mention that application Annexure P/3 cannot be said to have been filed by Sukhmander Singh alone because the application is not required to be signed by all the Plaintiffs. On the other hand, the application has been signed by counsel on behalf of all the Plaintiffs and therefore, the application cannot be deemed to be on behalf of Sukhmander Singh alone merely because out of the Plaintiffs, Sukhmander Singh alone signed the application. In addition to it, Sukhmander Singh is also said to be attorney of Respondent No. 2 who is one of the legal representatives of Plaintiff No. 1. For this reason as well, the application Annexure P/3 cannot be said to be untenable. Plaintiffs have a right to rebut the evidence of the Defendants regarding alleged compromise Ex. D1. Consequently, the application has been rightly allowed by the trial court. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and therefore, the revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed.