SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Pat) 167

U.N.SINHA
Satya Kinkar Palit – Appellant
Versus
Brahmdeo Sinha And Co. – Respondent


Judgment

U.N.Sinha, J.

1. This application has been filed by the defendant of a pending suit and it is directed against an order passed by the trial Court on the 24th August, 1971, directing that a Handwriting Expert, named Mr. C.T. Sarwate, who does not live in this State, may be examined on commission, on the prayer made by the plaintiff of the suit, in order to avoid delay. The Court has directed, that, the plaintiff must bear the costs of the travelling of the defendants lawyer, if the defendant chooses to take any lawyer to be present at the time of the examination of the Handwriting Expert. It appears that the Handwriting Expert lives in the State of Madhya Pradesh at Indore City. This Expert has already filed a report on the question of a disputed signature and the plaintiff wishes to examine the Expert on commission.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that, the plaintiff had filed a similar petition on the 3rd June, 1971, which had been rejected by an order passed on that day and, therefore, the order dated the 3rd June, 1971, operates as res judicata and the present order could not have been passed in law. Reliance is placed on the case of Rameshwar Singh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top