Civil Revision challenging the trial court's order permitting plaintiffs to examine a Finger and Handwriting expert to challenge a 1976 sale deed and 1978 decree. The High Court dismissed the petition due to lack of merit.
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.
Civil Revision No. 1833 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1833 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.3.2012
Ajit Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Smt. Meera Bai and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 23.2.2012, whereby the learned court below has allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs for examining Finger and Handwriting expert in a suit filed by them for challenging sale deed dated 1.7.1976 and civil court decree dated 9.2.1978 and the mutation entered on the basis thereof.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application in question was filed by the plaintiffs on the 6th date given to them for leading their evidence. The object is only to delay the trial. The suit itself is highly belated as the sale deed executed way back in the year 1976 and a decree of the court passed in the year 1978 were sought to be challenged in the suit filed in the year 2008. The name of the expert has also not been mentioned in the application.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. No doubt, it was 6th opportunity for the plaintiffs to produce their evidence. Once in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned court below has accepted the prayer made by the plaintiffs only for producing the expert witness for examination of the signatures/thumb impression on the sale deed and other documents, I do
Civil Revision No. 1833 of 2012 [2]
not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
27.3.2012 mk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order allowing a belated application for examination of an expert witness.
Ajit Singh
Smt. Meera Bai and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
