Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties
By an order dated 7.4.2004,the trial Court dismissed the application filed
by the appellant for sending agreement dated 28.9.1999 and her signature and thumb
impression for comparison at Government Laboratory, Madhuban/Hyderabad/
Calcutta on the sole ground that a similar prayer had been rejected earlier. That
order was confirmed by the High Court by dismissing the civil revision preferred by
the respondent. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
The only question to be examined in the present appeal is whether earlier
rejection of the appellant’s prayer for comparison of her signature and thumb
impression through Forensic Science Laboratory operated as res judicata and the
trial Court and the High Court were justified in declining similar prayer made by
her.
Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to order dated
16.3.2004 passed by the trial Court to show that the prayer for getting the signatures
and thumb
...2/-
impressions of the appellant compared through Forensic Science Laboratory was
rejected at that stage. This clearly means that the appellant could make similar
prayer at a later stage. This is precisely what was done on her behalf. However,
without correctly appreciating the import of order dated 16.3.2004, the trial Court
rejected her prayer on a wholly untenable ground that the said order operated as res
judicata. In our considered view, the order dated 7.4.2004 passed by the trial Court
suffered from jurisdictional error and the High Court failed to exercise
jurisdiction vested in it under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and
the prayer made by the appellant for sending agreement dated 28.9.1999 and her
signature and thumb impression for comparison to the Government Laboratory at
Madhuban is allowed.
Let hearing of the suit be expedited.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, July 21, 2008.