The court established that applications under Section 45 of the Evidence Act must be timely and that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to ensuring subordinate courts adhere to legal standards without correcting every error.

ORDER

1. The present writ petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 in Civil Case No. 244/02 whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, to compare and examine the signature of DW-4 Roshan Lal on Exhibit-1 with his admitted signature, under Section 45 of Evidence Act, 1872 was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error by wrongly considering the provisions of the law in respect of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and by not appreciating the true spirit of the legislature behind the said section - since the documents required to be compared and examined by an expert for proving the case and to establish the true facts - has caused great prejudice to the petitioner-plaintiff. Learned counsel contends that such examination was necessarily required to be conducted in the interest of justice.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Trial Court has passed a well reasoned speaking order after due consideration of the facts and material on record, which must be allowed to rest. Learned counsel further submits that the application was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff at a belated stage only to delay the proceedings.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, scanned the record of the writ petition and considered the judgments cited at Bar.

5. On perusal of record, it is observed that a similar application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was also filed by the petitioner-plaintiff at a previous occasion which was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2018. The said order was not assailed and has attained finality. The learned trial Court has also passed a well reasoned speaking order, the relevant part of which is reiterated below:-

This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning given by the learned trial Court. It is well settled that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a Court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held, that though the powers Under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this respect can be placed on a Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC 327. It is also noted that nobody precluded the petitioner to raise the said plea at the appropriate time and the same was only filed at a belated stage i.e. at the time of final arguments, which gives the impression that the same was filed only to delay the proceedings.

6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with a well reasoned speaking order by exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. Learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.