RAMKRISHN SHARMA Vs. SMT.SARITA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior in case No. 46A/2011, whereby an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to summon the handwriting expert to examine is handwriting on the disputed document with plaint and Vakalatnama has been rejected.

(2.) It is petitioner's contention that the said application has been wrongly rejected and such order is contrary to the law laid down by this court in the case of L.S.Trading Company (M/s) and another v. Manish Mishra as reported in 2010(III) MPWN2 = 2010(4) M.P.H.T. 219 (DB) . In the case of L.S.Trading Company (supra), Division Bench of this court has held that even after an application was moved by the defendant to examine his signatures on the promissory note, which he had denied in the written statement, then also the trial court could not have rejected such application, inasmuch as there is no bar in CPC on filing such application at the closure of the trial. In view of such case law, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by petitioner should have been allowed.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff had filed his suit for declaration of registered sale deed dated 3.3.2011 as null and void. It is alleged that defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 1 in collusion executed sale deed in relation to the property of the ownership and possession of the plaintiff.