// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6971/2008 Prakash Chand Gupta S/o Shri Babu Lal Gupta Versus Girraj Prasad S/o Shri Roop Narain and Others Date of Order ::: 28.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ram Rakh Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate, for Shri S.K. Gupta, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The defendant-tenant has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 11th July, 2008 (Annexure-6) passed by the trial court whereby his application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act has been rejected. The plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant- petitioner in the trial court. The suit is fixed for final hearing and at this stage the defendants filed an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act to the effect that the // 2 // disputed rent-note is a forged one, therefore, the same may be sent for expert's opinion. The application was contested by the plaintiffs. The trial court, vide impugned judgment, rejected the said application. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disputed rent-note is a forged document, therefore, the same should have been sent for expert's opinion. The trial court committed an illegality in not sending the same for the said purpose. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 11th July, 2008 passed by the trial court and also the other documents annexed with the writ petition. The trial court has passed a detailed and speaking order. It has been observed in the order that the plaintiffs filed the concerned document way back on 15th March, 2004 whereas the present application has been filed on 26th February, 2007. The Court has observed that it has powers under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare the signature of // 3 // tenant on the rent-note with his other admitted signatures and in these circumstances the trial court was of the view that it is not necessary to send the said document for expert's opinion. The reasons assigned by the trial court appears to be perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in this impugned order so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//