Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1230 (RAJ)

Bheru Lal Kukra v. Deepak Chordiya

2016-08-29

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 02.03.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 4, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') in Case No. 333/2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 45 and 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the petitioner while claiming that he has given a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner and in lieu of that the petitioner has given him two cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, but when he has submitted the said cheques, the same has not been honored by the Bank with a remark that the bank account of the petitioner is not having sufficient fund to release the amount mentioned in the said cheques. The respondent has, therefore, prayed that a money decree to the effect of Rs. 10,00,000/- be issued against the petitioner. 3. In the said suit, the petitioner has moved an application under Sections 45 and 67 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer that the cheques in question be sent for examination by the expert for determining the age of the ink while claiming that there is difference between the ink of signatures of the petitioner with the other writings on the cheques and, therefore, the same may be sent for examination by the expert. 4. The trial court has rejected the said application while observing that the plaintiff-respondent has admitted that there is a difference in the ink of signatures and the other writings on the cheques and in view of his admission, there is no requirement of sending the cheques in question for examination by the expert for the purpose of determining the age of the ink. 5. Having considered the fact that the plaintiff-respondent himself admitted before the trial court that there is difference between the ink of the signatures and other writings on the cheques, the trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Hence, no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.