é@ N HIGH COURT O F CHHATGARH: TIS BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 6429 of 2003 (Writ Petition under Article 22 of Constitution of India) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agotri, J. nih Present: Mr. B.P.Sharma, counselforthe petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 19‘“ day of November, 2003) B e yythis petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge th legality and validity of the order dated 8-10-208 Anexure P/1) pssed b 5 Civil Judge, Class ll, Durg, in Civil Suit No.61-B/200, whereby rye ade by the etitioner for examiation of the documents by the handwriting expert, _ was rejected. 2) The brief facts relevant for disposal of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.20,000/~ against the defendant/petitioner. The cheque issued by the defendant for the said amount was dis—honoured. Subsequently, a complaint was filed under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and for recovery of the same amount a civil suit was filed. ln the pending suit, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Section 45 of the lndian Evidence Act 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that counter foil presented by the petitioner/defendant be sent to the \handwriting expert to support his case that he had ‘is'sued the cheque for the 7 0 (n a y t” 6 par m p n \ Petitioner Aasandas Mohnani, son of Shri (Defehdant) son Mohnani, aged about 4O Proprietor: .M/s. Moonlight resident of Sindhi Colony, in front Sindhi Dharamshala, Durg (CG). Versus Resgondent Bhagwan Das Vishwakarma, (Plaintiff) son of Shravan Lal Vishwakarma, aged 52 years, resident of Block No.20—B, No.4, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (CG). said amount. The court below after having examined the case declined to refer the matter to the handwriting expert as no original was produced and consequently counter foil of the cheque as secondary evidence to prove issue of cheque, may be considered at appropriate time. 3) On perusal of the photo copy of the counter foil filed in this petition at page No.28, there is no signature of any party. Without making any observation on the nature of counter foil, i do not find any infirmity or illegality in rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner for referring the counter foil of the cheque to the handwriting expert. 4) Thejudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Damara Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. Gurujupalli Satvathamma (2008 AIR SCW 6507) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, is not relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case, as in this case the question of verification’ of a document is involved which does not bear any signature. . 5) This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 6) Thus, the order dated 8—10-2008 (Annexure P/r) passed by the 5‘“ Civil Judge, Class ll, Durg, is unexceptionable, just & proper and does not warrant any interference. 7r Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in Iimine. Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Sdl— IKSatish K. Agnihotri " Judge Raju