MOHANSINGH RAGHUVANSHI Vs. UJJAIN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by 10th Addl.District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit No.8-A/2006, whereby prayer of respondents No.3 and 4 to recall the plaintiff petitioner for cross-examination was allowed and respondents No.3 and 4 were also permitted to get the document Ex.P/43 to P/47 examined through handwriting expert, present petition has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was contested by the respondents. On the basis of the pleadings learned trial Court framed the issues and fixed the case for evidence. After completion of evidence of petitioner case was fixed for recording of evidence of respondents. During cross-examination of respondent No.3 Prakash, documents Ex.P/43 to P/47 were tendered in evidence by the petitioner of which the execution was admitted by respondent No.3. After completion of the evidence of respondents No.3 and 4 applications were filed, wherein it was alleged that there is interpolation, in the documents, therefore, respondents No.3 and 4 be permitted to recall the petitioner for cross-examination and the respondents No.3 and 4 be also permitted to get the documents examined through handwriting expert. The application was opposed by the petitioner. After hearing the parties learned Court below allowed the application against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner argued at length and submits that impugned order is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that sub-Rule 4 of Order 7 Civil Procedure Code permits the petitioner to produce the document in cross-examination. It is submitted that the document was tendered by the petitioner in cross-examination and execution of the document was admitted by respondent No.3. Thereafter respondent No.3 had no right to recall the petitioner for further cross-examination. It is submitted that at the most respondent No.3 could have given the explanation and nothing more. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.