Naval Kishore Journalist vs Dhanraj and Another

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 13.03.2003 (Annex. 3) whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for sending the documents to the handwriting expert for investigation has been rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff Dhanraj filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,395/- against the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner-defendant denied the allegations made in the plaint by filing written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as three issues. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was recorded and closed on 26.07.2001.

On 23.07.2002, the petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. and prayed that he got compared his signature with the signature put on the alleged promissory note by one hand-writing expert namely Sri Ramesh Thakur at Jodhpur and the report of the Handwriting Expert may be taken on record. The learned trial Court vide order dt. 21.01.2003 has allowed the said application preferred by the petitioner and ordered for taking the report of Handwriting Expert on record. On 19.02.2003 again the petitioner has preferred another application with the prayer that the original promissory note may be sent to the handwriting expert for detail investigation at the expense of the petitioner.

Learned trial Court vide order dt. 13.03.2003 dismissed the said application of the petitioner-defendant.

Being aggrieved by the order dt. 13.03.2003, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in not allowing the application preferred by the petitioner on 19.02.2003 for sending the original promissory note to the handwriting expert for detail investigation. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has passed the impugned order dt. 13.03.2003 without taking into consideration the material available on record and the trial Court has wrongly observed that the application is preferred only with the intention to prolong the matter. It is further submitted that the report of handwriting expert, made upon the certified copy of the promissory note, had already been taken on record and the learned trial Court has illegally refused to send the original promissory note to the hand writing expert for detail investigation. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the case set up by the respondent-plaintiff moved around the alleged promissory note and the respondent-plaintiff has every right to get the said promissory note investigated by handwriting expert.

Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in case of Harish Kumar vs. LRs of Ram Kishan passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 663/2004 decided on 26.3.2004, Mohd. Aslam vs. Shambhoo Singh & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2449/2004 decided on 07.04.2005 and decision of this Court at Jaipur Bench in case of Khen Chand vs. Hazari Lal reported in RLR 1993 (1) page 263.

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the orders 21.01.2003 and 13.03.2003.

The learned trial Court vide order dt. 21st January, 2003 has allowed the application of the petitioner moved under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and ordered for taking on record the opinion of the handwriting expert obtained by the petitioner-defendant on the certified copy of the alleged promissory note. It is to be noted that when the report of the expert submitted by the petitioner-defendant himself in respect of the alleged promissory note has already been taken on record by the trial Court vide order dt. 17.01.2003, there was no occasion for the petitioner to ask for sending the original document for obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that when the opinion of the expert has already been taken on record at the request of the petitioner on 17.01.2003, there is no need to obtain the opinion of the handwriting expert while sending the original promissory note to him. I find no illegality in the order dt. 13.03.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagaur.

The judgments on which the petitioner has placed reliance will not help the petitioner as in all those cases, the learned lower Courts has refused to obtain the opinion of handwriting expert on the documents whereas in this case the opinion of the handwriting expert in respect of the alleged promissory note, has already been taken on record by the trial Court, that is also at the instance of the petitioner, vide order dt. 21.01.2003.

In such circumstances, I find no force in this writ petition and same is hereby dismissed.

The stay petition is also dismissed. The stay order dt. 20.07.2004 is hereby vacated and the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case. A copy of this order may be sent to Additional District Judge, Nagaur.