The court's decision emphasized that applications filed under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code should not be used as a tactic to prolong the decision-making process.

JUDGMENT :

Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral)

This petition is directed against order dated 6.12.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 100 FTC/6 of 2012. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner moved an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending photocopy of thumb impressions S-1 to S-8 of Kamla to handwriting expert for seeking his opinion whether letter 'L' has been changed to 'R'. In other words, the original thumb impression of testatrix Kamla on Question No.1 is to be compared with S-1 to S-8. It has not been denied by learned counsel for the petitioner that the expert appeared in the witness box and he was cross-examined by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the counsel was not aware of the discrepancy of letter 'L' in S-1 to S-8 when the handwriting expert was cross-examined and, therefore, the application was filed. This appears to be after thought explanation. It has not been denied that S-1 to S-8 alongwith Question No.1 were available on the file when the handwriting expert was cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner. It will be presumed that the petitioner was aware of the discrepancy alleged by him when the handwriting expert was cross-examined.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that the handwriting expert when appeared in the witness box has not been cross-examined on the alleged discrepancy of letter 'L' in S-1 to S-8 in relation to Question No.1. In these circumstances, it can be safely inferred that the application has been filed by the petitioner in order to prolong the decision.

3. The learned lower Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the material on record while dismissing the application of the petitioner. There is no error of jurisdiction. There is no merit in the petition, hence dismissed, so also the pending application, if any.