Ramswaroop vs Harko - 2018 Supreme(MP) 104

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(MP) 104

VIVEK AGARWAL
Ramswaroop – Appellant
Versus
Harko – Respondent

Advocates:
Anand V. Bharadwaj for petitioner; Rajendra Jain for respondents No. 1 to 4.

ORDER

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 9.10.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 94A/2002, passed by the Court of First Civil Judge Class-2, Dabra, District Gwalior. Vide impugned order, an application moved by the present petitioner/plaintiff under the provisions of Order 16 rules 1 and 2 of CPC read with section 45 of the Evidence Act has been disallowed on the ground that the plaintiff did not choose to apply for calling record of the handwriting expert earlier.

2. It is petitioner's contention that such act of the plaintiff/petitioner in not calling the report of the handwriting expert at earlier point of time cannot be deemed to be not genuine, inasmuch as this Court in the case of Jai Narayan v. Satya Narayan and others, as reported in 1991 JLJ 428, has held that if the defendant adduces handwriting expert's report in his evidence, plaintiff should be allowed to produce evidence in rebuttal. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to para 7 of the aforesaid judgment, wherein the ratio is that when a Court grants permission to a party to produce handwriting expert to prove the handwriting a