1. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the orders, Annexure P/1 and P/2. The petitioner earlier filed an application Order 26 Rule 10 CPC and section 45 of the Evidence Act with a request to appoint an hand writing expert to inquire about the singnature of defendant Shabbir Khan. The said application of the petitioners was rejected by the Court below on 18.10.2012 merely on the ground that the said application was not supported by an affidavit. It was further opined that such application can be entertained at a later stage. Then petitioner filed another application on the same subject which was duly supported by an affidavit. This application is also rejected by order dated 6.11.12 (Annexure P/1). The Court below opined that earlier application was not rejected only because it was not supported by the affidavit, it was also rejected for the reason that this prayer can be entertained at a later stage i.e. after recording the evidence of the plaintiff.

2. It is interesting to note that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent Shri Mangal submits that he has no objection if handwriting expert’s opinion is obtained after recording the evidence of the plaintiff, but he has a serious objection of same this stage.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. In view of the aforesaid stand of the parties, principally there is no dispute about the requirement of the appointment of an handwriting expert. The only question is whether the Court below has rightly rejected the said prayer at this stage when plaintiffs statement is to be recorded.

5. It is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order which reads as under:-

flfoy ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 26 fu- 10 & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 45 & gLrys[k fo’ks”kK dh fu;qfä dh vko’;drk ds ckjs esa dksbZ fookn ugha & fu;qfä iwoZrj ÁØe ij dh tk ldrh gS rkfd leLr i{kdkj Qk;nk mBk ldsaA ¼2010½ 9 ,l-lh-lh 496 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8½

ORDER

1. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the orders, Annexure P/1 and P/2. The petitioner earlier filed an application Order 26 Rule 10 CPC and section 45 of the Evidence Act with a request to appoint an hand writing expert to inquire about the singnature of defendant Shabbir Khan. The said application of the petitioners wSA rejected by the Court below on 18.10.2012 merely on the ground that the said application wSA not supported by an affidavit. It wSA further opined that such application can be entertained at a later stage. Then petitioner filed another application on the same subject which wSA duly supported by an affidavit. This application is also rejected by order dated 6.11.12 (Annexure P/1). The Court below opined that earlier application wSA not rejected only because it wSA not supported by the affidavit, it wSA also rejected for the reSAon that this prayer can be entertained at a later stage i.e. after recording the evidence of the plaintiff.

2. It is interesting to note that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent Shri Mangal submits that he hSA no objection if handwriting expert’s opinion is obtained after recording the evidence of the plaintiff, but he hSA a serious objection of same this stage.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. In view of the aforesaid stand of the parties, principally there is no dispute about the requirement of the appointment of an handwriting expert. The only question is whether the Court below hSA rightly rejected the said prayer at this stage when plaintiffs statement is to be recorded.

5. It is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order which reads SA under:-

^^izdj.k ds voyksdu ls nf’kZr gS fd fnukad 18-10-12 dks izfroknh dh vksj ls mijksDr /kkjkvksa ds varxZr vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk tks dsoy ‘kCchj [kkW ds ‘kiFk i= u gksus ds dkj.k gh fujLr ugha