BACHUBHAI KAKAD GANGODA Vs. NATWARSINGH RAMSINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Soman for the Petitioner in both these petitions and Mr. Sachin Padiye instructed by Girish Agarwal for the Respondent.

(2.) Challenge in Writ Petition No. 14242 of 2017 is the order below Exhibit 67 by which the learned Trial Judge has dismissed the Petitioner's application in which the Petitioner had applied for the following reliefs:

(3.) Mr. Soman, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that this was the fit case for all the aforesaid reliefs were required to be granted because the signatures of the attesting witness at Exhibits 60 and 61 are entirely different. He submits that the learned Trial Court by exercising powers under Sec. 73 of the Evidence Act had virtually deprived the Petitioner of the opportunity of the exercising handwriting experts in the context of varying the signature of the attesting witness. He relies on The State (Delhi Administration) v/s. Pali Ram, 1979 2 SCC 158 to submit that as the matter of prudence the Court should never base its finding with regard to the identity and handwriting on the basis of comparison made by itself. He submits that in any case, such comparison has to be made at the stage of final hearing and not at any earlier stage. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order warrants interference.