S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2775/2009 Prem Chand Jain Vs. Lal Chand and ors. Dated : 22.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Prem Chand is present in person. *** By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set aside the order dated 24th October, 2008 whereby the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Sawai Madhopur in civil Suit No.69/2004 dismissed the prayer of the petitioner to re-summon the plaintiff for the purpose of recross-examination and sending the Will to Forensic Science Laboratory for obtaining the expert opinion. 2. Having heard the petitioner and carefully perused the impugned order, it is found that a suit for partition came to be filed by the plaintiff-Lal Chand in the Court. The plaintiff-Lal Chand and the defendants namely Sugan Chand and Prem Chand are the real brothers. The petitioner defendant no.2 submitted an application before the trial Court stating that the plaintiff had forged a Will on 28th April, 1986 to grab the property of his father. The Will bore the forged signatures, hence, he prayed the court to send it to F.S.L. for comparison of signatures and obtaining of the expert opinion. The learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner- respondent No.2 had already been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The statement of defendant No.1 was recorded on 10th September, 2004, 1st October, 2004 and 26th April, 2005. Both, the counsel for the plaintiff as also Shri Kunj Bihari Sharma Advocate, cross- examined the witness at length and, thus, the learned trial Court did not think it proper to re-summon the witness for the purpose of re-cross-examination. So far as the question of sending the forged Will to FSL is concerned, the application with regard to sending the same to FSL had, already been dismissed. 3. It is relevant to record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently held that the High Court should exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution only when the impugned order is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the High Court should escape from interfering with the finding of facts of the court below. 4. The impugned order is found to be just and proper and suffers from no perversity. The petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to cross-examine the defendant No.1. Hence, it cannot be said that the opportunity to cross-examine the -3- defendant No.1 was not given to the petitioner. The impugned order neither is contrary to material nor it results in manifesting injustice. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg