HARI MOHAN Vs. ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant, challenging the order dated 24.9.08 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 52/04 by which the trial court has allowed the application of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4-plaintiffs permitting them to send the document in question to the handwriting expert for his opinion.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the document in question was produced by the respondents-plaintiffs and the trial court vide the impugned order has handed over the said document to the plaintiffs for getting handwriting expert's opinion on the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial court should not have directly handed over the said documents to the respondents-plaintiffs and should itself have called for the opinion of the handwriting expert. He has also relied upon the unreported judgment of this court in SBCWP No. 15255/09 Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs. Smt. Zimmi and Ors. decided on 4.1.2011 in support of his submission.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that on the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs the trial court has permitted the respondents-plaintiffs to get the opinion of the handwriting expert on the said document, on their replacing the original with the certified copy of the said document. It appears that there being no stay of the impugned order granted by this court, the impugned order has already been implemented and the opinion of the handwriting expert has also been produced before the trial court, which is under consideration before the trial court as the suit is fixed for final arguments. As such, there is no gross illegality committed by the trial court in passing the impugned order, which would require interference of this court exercising limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence the court is not inclined to interfere with the same more particularly when the order under challenge has already been implemented.