IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No.4‘34—0 OF 2004 PETITIONERS 1. Hardayal Singh, son of Late Dhyansingh, aged about 72 years. Sardar Harvinder Singh, Adult, son of Shri Hardayal Singh,. Sardar Satpal Singh, Adult son of Shri Hardayal Singh. A11 RESPONDENTS residents of Mahaveer Nagar, Gram Puraina, Tehsil 8a District Raipur (C.G.). \VS Sardar Balbir Singh Chadda, son of Shri Santosh Singh Chadda, aged about 42 years, resident of Shyam Nagar, Raipur. Smt. Inderbeer Kaur, Wife of Shri Harnamjeet Singh, resident of Near Preet Flour Mill, Shyam Nagar, Raipur. Smt. Amritbeer 'Kaur, wife of Shri Gurucharan Singh, resident of 57/B, Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi—18 Simrambeer Singh, son of Shri Balbeer Singh Chadda, a Minor through its legal guardian father Sardar Balbir Singh Chadda, son of Shri Santosh Singh Chadda, resident of Shyam Nagar,’ Raipur. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Raipur (C.G.) w W o r WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION o’F INDIA. XI-HC—22 1.8.2005 Shri B.P. Sharma, counscl for the petitioners. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, counsel for re‘spondsnt No‘ 1. Shri Parag Kotecha, P‘L. for raspondent No.5. H€ard. By the instant Writ petition the petitioner has questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 16.10.2004 passed by learned 10th Additional District Judge, Raipur whereby learned Additional District Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner herein filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act read with Sedtion 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for getting the document dated 5.3,1995 examined from the handwriting expert in order to ascertain whether it is a ge uine or forged. . Brief facts leading to iling of this writ petition are that respondent Nos.1 to filed a civil suit against the petitioners for specific erformance of the contract entered between the petiti ners and respondent No.1 to 4 with the averments that he petitioners herein entered into an agreement to sal in respect of the property mentioned in Paragraph-2 of the' plaint and in token thereof executed a docum nt on 31.3.1994 and got it attested by the Notary. T e petitioners herein filed the written statement of the, laint, after that issues have been framed and the mat er is fixed for evidence and XI—HC-ZZ mammw‘aa above application was filed by it the document dated 5.3. 1995 handwriting expert. N rejected the said application :ument dated 5.3.1995 iS’not the reason that the suit has not f document dated 5.3.1995. The court below is correct because Nos.’1 to 4 is based on the 19485 28.8.1995, therefore, it is ;aid document be got examined pert in order to ascertain that the habit of creating forged /’L’ ’ during that period, the the petitioners herein th. be got examined from the Learned court b610“ on the ground that do relevant in the case, for been filed on the basis o above observation of the the suit of respondent documents dated 31.3.1‘; not necessary that the : from the handwriting ex the respondents are in decuments.’ In View of the above, I do not find any illegality or impugned and therefore, it is not a matter where the Article 227 of the Co exercised. irregularity in the order extraord inary jurisdiction under nstitution of India should be As such, the petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. “Consequently, M No.98‘11/02 also stand d Sdl- L.C.BHADOO Judge (ate are?) I.A._ Pg, (W.)P. No.5201/04 at ismissed.