L S TRADING COMPANY Vs. MANISH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26-4-2010 passed by learned 9th Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 4-B/10, whereby application of defendants/petitioners to get the disputed signature on the document examined by the handwriting expert has been rejected, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners.

(2.) No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this petition, suffice it to say that a suit for recovery of certain amount, the details of which are mentioned in the plaint, has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the petitioners/defendants. The petitioners by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments and specifically denied the execution of the document as well as the signature on the disputed document of promissory note. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed necessary issue and parties led their evidence. The learned Trial Court thereafter fixed the case for final arguments. At that juncture, an application (Annexure P-7) dated 26-4-2010 was filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act praying therein that defendants want to get the disputed signature examined by examining the handwriting expert. The learned Trial Judge by impugned order has rejected the said application.

(3.) In this manner, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/defendants. We have gone through the impugned order as well as the application filed by petitioners/defendants under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. We have also heard Shri Mohan Mangal, Advocate for respondent/plaintiff and we are of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed.