Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Kuldip Singh, J.
Himanshu —Petitioner
versus
Bishan Dutt & Anr. —Respondents
CMPMO No. 16 of 2013
Decided on 2.3.2013
Result: Petition dismissed.
Kuldip Singh, J.—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 CPC read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending photocopy of thumb impressions S1 to S8 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 S1 to S8. 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 S1 to S8 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 S1 to S8 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 S1 to S8 in relation to Question No.1. In these circumstances, it can be safely inferred that the application bas 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.
Petition dismissed.
*******
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
