TILAK RAJ GULATHI Vs. SHAKUNTALA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE singular question involved in this case is whether the Court below was justified in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.

(2.) SHRI K.S.Tomar, learned senior counsel submits that in a suit for eviction and recovery of rent, the petitioner/defendant has filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (Annexure P -4). By drawing attention of this Court on the application, it is urged that in para 3 of the application, it was specifically mentioned that the defendant/petitioner has produced the documents D -1,D -2 and D -3 and the plaintiff has already admitted the signatures of her husband on these documents. In the light of aforesaid, it was prayed that the Ex.D -4 which is the main document on the part of the defendant be directed to be examined by a handwriting expert. The case of the defendant is based on this document Ex.D -4. The signatures of Shri Krishnadas Sharma was there which can be verified on the basis of the report of the handwriting expert.

(3.) THE plaintiff/respondent filed reply Annexure P -5 and denied the allegations and prayed for rejection of the application.