RAKESH PURI Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 24.3.2009 whereby the application filed under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending document Ext.PW-1/A to the handwriting expert and to have the signatures of the petitioner compared on the disputed document has been rejected.

(2.) A perusal of order passed by the learned trial court shows that the suit was filed in the year 2000. Issues were framed and after framing of issues, the defendant did not put in appearance and was proceeded against Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. ex-parte. He filed an appeal, which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Kangra and the petitioner was permitted to rejoin the proceedings. Thereafter the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 29.9.2008. The defendant took number of dates to lead his evidence. He did not lead any evidence but filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which was allowed on 24.11.2008. Additional issue was framed on 1.12.2008 and thereafter the evidence of the defendant was closed on 26.2.2009. It was only after the case was fixed for arguments this application was filed. Therefore, the learned trial court was justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for obtaining the opinion of handwriting expert.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.