HIGH COURT OF CI-IHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 2865/2009 PETITIONER : Nil'anjan Lal Mahawar Versus RESPONDENTS Nirmal Mahawar and others Appearance: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shl‘i Sourabh Shanna, counsel for the petitioner. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, PL for the State/respondent No.3. None for respondent No.2 though served. Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for respondent No.1. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (10.02.2011) The Trial Court, while considering plaintiiT’s application under Section 151 of CPC, has directed the plaintiff to cross examine the handwriting expert appearing as a witness for the defendant, hom any other handwriting expert than the one named by the plaintiff namely Ku. Sunanda Dhenge. (2) Admittedly, the defendant has obtained permission for submitting expert evidence in relation to some documents exhibited in the suit. To cross examine the handwriting expert namely Shri Sanjay Kotwal who is appearing as a Witness for the defendant, the plaintiE moved an’application for permission to engage Ku. Sunanda Dhenge, a handwriting expert, along with his counsel. The respondent No. lldefendant raised obj ection on 1the ground that Kn. Sunanda Dheng‘e’has earlier accorded opinion against 'lhim, therefore he may be prejudiced and as such the said Ku. Dhenge I 1 Q'Lr should not be allowed to cross examine the handwriting expert who is appearing as a Witness for the defendant. (3) Learned Trial Court has sustained the objection and directed the petitioner to submit name of any other handwriting expert with the consent of defendant for cross examination ofthe defendant’s Witness namely Shri Sanjay Kotwal, handwriting expert. (4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents available in the record, it would appear: to this Court that merely because the handwriting expert who shall cross examine another handwriting expert who is a witness for the defendant, happens to have accorded opinion against him on a previous occasion would neither debar him nor would prejudice the case ofthe defendant. An expert would cross examine another expert within the four comers of provisions of law and the obtaining factual position ofthe case and that too under the supervision of the Court. The apprehension raised by the defendant appears to be emotional rather than substantial. (5) In View ofthe above, this Court is ofthe considered opinion-that the Trial Court has committed material irregularity while disallowing plaintitfs prayer for allowing him to cross examine defendant’s witness Shri Sanjay Kotwal, a handwriting expert, from his own handwriting expert namely Ku. Sunanda Dhenge. (6) Consequently, prayer made by the petitioner is allowed. (7) The writ petition stands allowed. (8) I No order as to cost. I Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishia » Judge . z 1