USHA SHARMA Vs. MAHARAJ KISHAN RAINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved with an order dated 15.01.2008 passed by 10th Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 2A/06, whereby learned Judge has rejected an application dated 23.10.2007 filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act requesting therein to permit her to get the disputed signatures of Balasaheb Paradkar examined by a hand writing expert, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that with regard to same disputed signatures (on Ex. P/9 & Ex. P/15) an application filed earlier by opposite party-respondent No. 1/ defendant was allowed and the report of the hand writing expert of the opposite party filed, is on record. After considering the report against the interest of the petitioner, she has also applied to provide same opportunity to her in rebuttal. The present application has been disputed by the opposite party-respondents herein. The learned Judge while passing the impugned order has observed that there is already one report of the hand writtingexpert available on record, hence, permitting again for seeking second report of the different handwriting expert with regard to same disputed signatures does not appear justified. If the petitioner/plaintiff is not satisfied with the earlier report, she can cross-examine handwriting expert concerned.

(3.) While, placing reliance on the following orders of this Court, Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that calling second hand writing expert's report is not prohibited by law. When opportunity of filing such report has been allowed to one party, in rebuttal, the opposite party also require to be provided such an opportunity. :-