Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1944 (RAJ)

Barcha Ram v. Anchi Devi

2012-09-13

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dated 19.3.2009 (Annex.4) passed by Addl. District Judge, Annopgarh by which the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act by the plaintiff petitioner was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not satisfied with the earlier report of F.S.L., therefore, an application was filed by the petitioner plaintiff under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending agreement in question to the private expert for ascertaining the correctness of thumb impression but trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the said agreement was already got examined by the FSL in the trial. The said reason for not sending the document to the private specialist is totally wrong because it is open to the petitioner to make prayer to send the document for re-examination, if he is not satisfied with the report of F.S.L., therefore, order impugned may be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that agreement in question was already sent to FSL, Jaipur and after examination, a report dated 15.10.2008 was received by the trial Court, which is already on record but without assigning any reasons in the application to disagree with the said report, the petitioner again filed an application for reexamination by the private expert. The trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the report is already on record and once the document has been examined by the competent laboratory of the State then it is not necessary to send the same again to the private expert for re-examination, simply for the reason that the plaintiff petitioner is not accepting the same, therefore, the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, this writ petition may be dismissed. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. It appears from the order impugned that upon the document in question opinion of laboratory of State is already on record and no satisfactory reasons are in existence to send the documents in question to the private expert again, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner plaintiff. 5. It appears from the order impugned that upon the document in question opinion of laboratory of State is already on record and no satisfactory reasons are in existence to send the documents in question to the private expert again, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner plaintiff. 5. In my opinion, the intention of filing application again under Section 45 of the Evidence Act inspite of the fact that the report has already been obtained during trial from the FSL, Jaipur is to delay the trial of the case, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******