Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 243 (RAJ)

Narsingh S/o Shri Shanker Lal v. Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal

2017-01-19

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
ORDER : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred aggrieved by order dated 06.08.2016 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Sriganganagar, vide which the court below has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 18, Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the suit was filed for specific performance and the application was moved for sending the agreement to sale to the Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain as to whether the signatures on the agreement to sale tallies with the signatures of the seller, which were available in his bank account. It is also contended that since the person executing the sale deed died before the suit was filed and there was denial by the legal representatives of the deceased with regard to the signatures of the deceased on the agreement to sale, it was necessary for the court to send the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory, so as to come to a just conclusion. 3. I have considered the contentions of counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case. 4. The suit in question was filed in January, 2009. The plaintiff has led his evidence without reserving his right of rebuttal. The defendant has also led his evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments on 21.05.2016. Thereafter, the present petitioner/plaintiff moved an application under Order 18, Rule 3 CPC for sending the agreement to sale to the Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain whether the same bears the signatures of the deceased. The court below vide the impugned order rejected the application. 5. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Pratap Singh & Ors. v. Smt. Zimmi & Ors., 2011 WLC (Raj.) UC 668, wherein the court, after closure of plaintiff’s evidence, permitted sending of the document to the Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain whether the thumb impression on the sale deed was genuine. 6. In the case, which was there before the Court, the matter was not at the final stage, whereas the one before this Court, is a case where both the parties have led their evidence and the plaintiff has not reserved his right of rebuttal and the matter was listed for final arguments. 6. In the case, which was there before the Court, the matter was not at the final stage, whereas the one before this Court, is a case where both the parties have led their evidence and the plaintiff has not reserved his right of rebuttal and the matter was listed for final arguments. The parties had ample opportunity to lead their evidence as to genuinity of the document and to establish that the same was signed by the deceased. There was therefore, no justification in permitting sending of the document to the handwriting expert at the belated stage. Thus, the court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application under Order 18, Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner. 7. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed. The record of the trial court is sent forthwith.