Dismissed

Samda Ram Son of Shri Sujya v. Rangnath Maheshwari Son of Shri Hariprasad Maheshwari

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2025CW/18564/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant in a specific-performance suit, having denied thumb impressions on an agreement, sought FSL examination under Section 45 IEA after his earlier expert report; trial court rejected the application. The High Court held the court cannot collect evidence for parties and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Samda Ram Son of Shri Sujya Vs Rangnath Maheshwari… — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:49621]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18564/2025

¶4

Samda Ram Son Of Shri Sujya, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Khairwadi, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rangnath Maheshwari Son Of Shri Hariprasad Maheshwari, Resident Of Plot No. 9 Vinayak Industries, Phase-II, Bindayaka, Industrial Area, Jaipur

¶8

Smt Munni Devi Modi Wife Of Shri Bhagwati Prasad Modi, Resident Of 1/43, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shreyansh Sharma
For Respondent(s)	:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

¶12

Order

¶13

06/12/2025

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 02.08.2025, whereby the application filed by the defendantpetitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act was rejected.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 16.05.2011, against the defendant-petitioner. The defendant-petitioner filed his reply way back in the year 2018, denying the execution of the agreement as well as denying the thumb impressions on the agreement.

¶16

The petitioner had also submitted the expert opinion dated 06.10.2017 before the learned trial Court, to the effect that the

(2 of 2)

[2025:RJ-JP:49621]

[CW-18564/2025]

thumb impressions were not similar and did not match the admitted thumb impressions of the defendant petitioner.

¶21

On filing the report, he submits that it has now become necessary for him to get the matter examined through FSL under the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, and therefore, he contends that his application was wrongly rejected by the trial Court.

¶22

Heard. Perused the material available on record.

¶23

This Court finds that the suit was filed way back in the year 2014, the reply was filed in 2018, and the expert report was submitted by the petitioner dated 06.10.2017. Since the said report forms the part of record, it is required to be duly proved by the defendant by leading appropriate evidence in his defence.

¶24

The Court cannot become a tool to collect evidence on behalf of any of the parties. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the order dated 02.08.2025.

¶25

The writ petition stands dismissed.

¶26

All pending application(s), if any, shall also dismissed.

¶27

(BIPIN GUPTA),J

¶28

PARSHANT /2

Samda Ram Son of Shri Sujya v. Rangnath Maheshwari Son of Shri Hariprasad Maheshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Samda Ram Son of Shri Sujya v. Rangnath Maheshwari Son of Shri Hariprasad Maheshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Space 4 Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Vs District Collector (Sikar)

M/S Jain Builders Vs Union of India through General Manager, North - Western Railway

M/S Hari Prakash Sharma Vs Union of India

Abdul Kayyum S/O Shri Abdul Hakim Vs Smt. Jainab B Wife of Aslamuddin

Mahendra Singh Kama Son of Late Shri Shiv Singh Kama Vs Smt. Neelam Harpalani Wife of Shri Tulsidas Harpalani

Smt. Vina Bhatia (Expired During the Pendency of the Suit) W/O Shri Ramesh Chand Bhatia Vs Kuberchand Hirachand Shah S/O Shri Hirachand Shah