The Single Judge allowed the petition to examine a handwriting expert to compare admitted signatures with questioned ones on a fixed deposit receipt, setting aside the impugned order of the trial court.
Impugned order set aside; petition and application allowed to examine handwriting expert; opposite party given opportunity to rebut.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~8
DR KULDEEP KUMAR MITTAL & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gaurav Shama, Mr. Rajiv Mishra and Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocates
versus
..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Chawla, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Soumd Palit, Adv. for R-4
SAVITA MITTAL & ORS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA O R D E R % 16.01.2018
After some hearing the learned counsel for the first respondent, who is the plaintiff in suit (CS no.493/16/08) fairly concedes that the impugned order dated 22.08.2016 of the Additional District Judge may be set aside and the application of the petitioners under Sections 45, 67 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act may be allowed giving an opportunity to the petitioners to examine the hand writing expert to prove the opinion on the basis of comparison of the admitted signatures of the first respondent (plaintiff) with questioned signatures on document (Ex. DW1/3) statedly executed in the context of a fixed deposit receipt.
The petition is thus allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application of the petitioners to above effect stands allowed. CM(M) 1100/2016 page 1 of 2
page 1 of 2
The trial court will give effective opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence in above nature. Needless to add, the opposite party will also be given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal, if so requested, at appropriate stage.
The petition and the application filed therewith stand disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 16, 2018 yg
page 2 of 2
CM(M) 1100/2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to set aside the impugned order and allow the petition to examine a handwriting expert regarding disputed signatures.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Kuldeep Kumar Mittal & Ors.
Savita Mittal & Ors.
R.K. Gauba
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
