MANGAL KISHORE Vs. BRIJ KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of plaintiff petitioner assails the order dtd. 11/09/2017 whereby the application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the document i.e. the affidavit stated to be signed by him which he alleges to be forged, to FSL has been rejected by the learned trial court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that since the document was produced in a separate suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in defence by the defendants-respondents and immediately thereafter the plaintiff-petitioner had lodged an FIR alleging the said document to be a forged document, the case of the plaintiff-petitioner has always been that the document is a forged one. In this regard, learned counsel points out that litigation ensued earlier before this Court and when the SHO demanded the said document for getting the same verified though FSL, this Court observed as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner further submits that in the present case too, during evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner, the document was produced by the defendants-respondents and the plaintiff-petitioner has denied existence of the said document and has also stated that the same is a forged document and not signed by him. In continuation thereof, it has become incumbent upon the plaintiff-petitioner, therefore, to move application under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act praying the concerned Court to send the document for FSL examination. It is submission of the learned counsel that the learned trial court has fallen in error in relying on Sec. 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and not getting their document eight sent to the FSL or getting the handwriting examined from a private expert. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) vs. Pali Ram : AIR 1979 (SC) 14.