Back
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Jai Singh – Appellant
Versus
L. C. Sharma (Since deceased) Thr Lrs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. The petitioner challenges the order the dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court in suit No. 619515/2016 titled “Jai Singh Vs. L. C. Sharma” whereby the application under Order VIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC, 1908 filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff seeking summoning of one Mr. Ashok Kashyap, handwriting expert, along with original report was dismissed.
2. Mr. Vinaik submits that the aforesaid application was filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff seeking examination of handwriting expert to allay the objections raised by the respondent that the signatures of the respondent appended to the agreement to sell and receipt are forged and fabricated.
3. Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik submits that originally, one Mr. B. Lal, handwriting expert was sought to be examined, however, unfortunately, the said Mr. B. Lal had expired.
4. Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik also further submits that it is only as a replacement of Mr. B. Lal that an application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC, 1908 was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking summoning of another handwriting expert, namely, Mr. Ashok Kashyap al
Any party asserting an issue is entitled under law to bring on record all and any evidence in its power, custody, and possession before the Court to make good its case.
The handwriting expert's report cannot be discarded if it pertains to a relevant aspect of the matter, and the accused has the opportunity to challenge the report.
Expert opinions are not binding and must be evaluated alongside other evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of hand writing expert opinion in challenging the authenticity and genuineness of a document, as provided under Order XXVI Rule 10A ....
Review petitions must be timely and supported by substantive rationale; undue delays in seeking to reopen evidence can prejudice the rights of other parties.
A party's failure to object to an expert's appointment at the outset limits their ability to contest the findings later, especially when it may cause delays in legal proceedings.
The repeated failure to avail opportunities granted by the court to lead evidence can amount to an abuse of process of law and delay the final adjudication of a suit.
The filing of a review petition and the conduct of the parties in delaying the adjudication of the suit.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
