DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY MUNSIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against an interlocutory order dated 5-8-93 rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for getting the signature of the petitioner of the challan said to have been done at the instance of Inspector Weights and Measurements, Etah. The petitioner denied this signatures to be there on the challan and even on the receipt paying the fine. No doubt the parties were permitted to lead evidence by affidavits and they have done so and witnesses who had filed affidavits, were also permitted to be cross-examined. The petitioner was advised to move the application to get the documents in question examined by the Hand Writing Expert. THIS was not accepted and the application was rejected.

(2.) NO doubt this court in interlocutory orders, generally do not interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution but there are certain cases in which the circumstance if appears to be compelling, and non-interference likely to cause injustice to the parties, this court has the power and has interfered in large number of cases. After considering the allegations in the application and the facts stated in the writ petition, I am of the opinion that the petitioner had taken a correct step by moving the application for getting the document examined by the Hand Writing Expert. That would be the better course than to decide the case on affidavit versus affidavit. Sri Vipin Saxena has filed caveat in the case. I have heard him also. He submitted that he would not like to file any counter-affidavit and agrees that the petition itself may be finally decided today at the admission stage.

(3.) A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel within three days on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed.