RAMSWAROOP Vs. HARKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 94A/2002, passed by the court of First Civil Judge Class-2, Dabra, District Gwalior. Vide impugned order, an application moved by the present petitioner/plaintiff under the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act has been disallowed on the ground that the plaintiff did not choose to apply for calling record of the handwriting expert earlier.

(2.) It is petitioner's contention that such act of the plaintiff/petitioner in not calling the report of the handwriting expert at earlier point of time can not be deemed to be not genuine, inasmuch as this court in the case of Jai Narayan v. Satya Narayan and others as reported in 1991 JLJ 428 has held that if the defendant adduces handwriting expert's report in his evidence, plaintiff should be allowed to produce evidence in rebuttal. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this court to para 7 of the aforesaid judgment, wherein the ratio is that when a Court grants permission to a party to produce handwriting expert to prove the handwriting and signature on a document, which the former party has denied, the trial Court shall see that the reports of the handwriting experts are received on both the sides within a period of six weeks from today and for that the parties shall be ready and shall give their specimen signatures.

(3.) Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of L.S. Trading Company Gwalior and another v. Manish Mishra as reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 228 , wherein in para 4 and 5 the ratio is that the defendants/petitioners voluntarily closed their evidence and at the stage of final arguments an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was filed to get the High Court of Madhya Pradesh disputed signature examined by the handwriting expert. The court held that the doors of justice can not be shut merely on the ground that the application was moved by defendants at the fag end of the trial.