AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 242 wordsSanjay K. Agrawal, J
By the impugned order dated 27/07/2019, petitioner's/plaintiff's application under Order 26 Rule 10 of CPC read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act has been rejected by learned 1 st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur on the ground that the trial is at the verge of completion of plaintiff's evidence against which this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by her.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting petitioner's/plaintiff's application by the impugned order which is unsustainable and bad in law and relies upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Damara Venkata Murali Krishna Rao Vs. Gurujupalli Satvathamma1
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, considered her submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
Be that as it may, petitioner/plaintiff is at liberty to get the questioned document examined by the handwriting expert and file his report expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from today and in that event, learned trial Court would consider the said report filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, if any, in accordance with law subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- to defendant No. 4.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, the respondent is at liberty to file suitable application for modification of this order, if aggrieved. Certified copy, today.