KRISHNA MISHRA Vs. MUKUT BIHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dt. 24.05.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Ajmer, (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Case No. 124/2002, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Sec. 45 read with Section 73 of the Evidence Act. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Raunak Singhvi for the petitioner that as per the case of the petitioner -defendant, the signatures appearing on the agreement Exhibit -1 were not of the petitioner and they were forged one, and therefore, it was necessary to obtain expert's opinion on the genuineness of the signatures in question, however the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioners.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the respondent -plaintiff had filed the suit against the petitioner -defendant seeking specific performance of the agreement in question. The said suit was decreed exparte against the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, had filed the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside of the said decree, which was allowed by the Court. Thereafter, when both the parties had concluded their respective evidence and when the suit was fixed for final arguments, the application was given by the petitioner -defendant for referring the document Exhibit -1 to the Handwriting Expert, for examination of the signatures appearing thereon. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application by holding that the said application was given only with a view to delay the proceedings. The trial Court has also exercising its powers under Sec. 73 of the Evidence Act, had compared the signatures appearing on the disputed document with the admitted signatures of the petitioner on the other document, for holding that there was no necessity to refer the disputed signatures to the Handwriting Expert. The impugned order being just and proper, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. In that view of the matter, the petition is dismissed.