S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2892/2004. Case: Naval Kishore Journalist Vs Dhanraj and Anr.. Rajasthan High Court

Case Number:S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2892/2004
Party Name:Naval Kishore Journalist Vs Dhanraj and Anr.
Counsel:For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Shrimali and Mr. Mahesh Joshi, Advocates and For Respondents: None Present on Behalf of Respondents
Judges:Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Issue:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VII Rules 11, 14
Citation:2013 (2) WLN 323
Judgement Date:February 08, 2013
Court:Rajasthan High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

  1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 13.03.2003 (Annex. 3) whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for sending the documents to the handwriting expert for investigation has been rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff Dhanraj filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,395/- against the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner-defendant denied the allegations made in the plaint by filing written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as three issues. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was recorded and closed on 26.07.2001.

  2. On 23.07.2002, the petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. and prayed that he got compared his signature with the signature put on the alleged promissory note by one hand-writing expert namely Sri Ramesh Thakur at Jodhpur and the report of the Handwriting Expert may be taken on record. The learned trial Court vide order dt. 21.01.2003 has allowed the said application preferred by the petitioner and ordered for taking the report of Handwriting Expert on record. On 19.02.2003 again the petitioner has preferred another application with the prayer that the original promissory note may be sent to the handwriting expert for detail investigation at the expense of the petitioner.

  3. Learned trial Court vide order dt. 13.03.2003 dismissed the said application of the petitioner-defendant.

  4. Being aggrieved by the order dt. 13.03.2003, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

  5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in not allowing the application preferred by the petitioner on 19.02.2003 for sending the original promissory note to the handwriting expert for detail investigation. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has passed the impugned order dt. 13.03.2003 without taking into consideration the material available on record and the trial Court has wrongly observed that the application is preferred only with the intention to prolong the matter. It is further submitted that the report of handwriting expert, made upon the certified copy of the promissory note, had already been taken on record and the learned trial Court has illegally refused to send the original promissory note to the hand writing expert for detail investigation. It is also...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL