YASH PAL SHARMA Vs. SHANTA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 15th May, 1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the application of the appellant-plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed under order 41, Rule 27, CPC. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent.

(2.) MR . Gill, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, the petitioner wants to examine Mr. Vikram Raj Singh who had been working in the chambers of Dewan K. S. Puri, the handwriting expert to prove the expert opinion given by Dewan K. S. Puri, who is now dead. The learned counsel submits that the evidence of the said witness is essential for the proper adjudication of the case. He, there fore, contends that the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff should be accepted. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lal Pancham and Ors. , A. I. R. 1965 SC 1008.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this petition. From the impugned order itself, I find that the petitioner-plaintiff could not satisfy the learned lower appellate court as to why they could not examine Diwan K. S. Puri himself who was the author of the expert opinion. It has further been stated that even if Diwan K. S. Puri was not keeping well, he could have been examined on commission but in the present case, no application for examining Diwan K. S. Puri on commission was made by the petitioner. Even from the statement of Mr. Navdeep Gupta I find that though this witness has admitted that he did not know Urdu but he clearly stated that as an expert, he could read Urdu letters for the purpose of the report. From these facts, it cannot be said that despite due diligence the petitioner-plaintiffs could not examine their witness which they are now seeking to examine by way of additional evidence.