LALIT KUMAR Vs. KUSUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 22.9.2011. The plaintiffs filed an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act, wherein it is stated that a document executed by late Ramkali Devi is filed by the defendants in the civil suit. It contains thumb impression of the said lady. It is stated that to examine the genuineness of the thumb impression it is necessary to summon the handwriting expert. This application was opposed by the defendants on the ground that on 26.4.2010 an expert report is already obtained and, therefore, no further direction in this regard is required. The court below opined that on 1.10.2009 the subject expert was called on the request of the plaintiffs and now again request aforesaid is made and if it is accepted, it will delay further proceedings.

(2.) CRITICIZING the said order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thumb impression of late Ramkali Devi is mentioned in power of attorney dated 19.11.1970, cancellation of power of attorney by letter dated 26.11.1986 and in another power of attorney dated 22.11.1986. Relying on Dhannalal vs. Dharamlal, 2004 4 MPLJ 432Shri Santosh Agarwal submits that the trial court has no expertise to examine the correctness and genuineness of thumb impression and, therefore, expert opinion is required and court below has erred in disallowing the application.

(3.) IT is opposed by Shri Prashant Sharma by saying that there is no error in the order of the court below.