IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (227) N0. (^Cq^ OF 2008 (S.B.} PETITiONER : DEFENDANT N0.2 ^-X^s-y .:..^^ls^; •^Kl^^"""" Keshri Sataiarai S/o La,j;e Shiy Charan Satnami, R/o Village ''^^-2.1'^s:" Kodapar, Post Amsena, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS DEFENDANTNO.l; RESPONDENTS : 1. -^Sanjay KumarAgrawal S/o PLAINTIFF Radheshyam Agrawal, R/o.Ganj Para, Raipur Town, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). Fulesiya Satnami S/o Late Shiv Charan Satnami, R/o ViUage Kodapar, Post Amsena, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICU; 227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA tt|*Tl \ n';!t-' Wi I 'l i i 5' HI€HCOUKIT^ G^EIAII1'^©AB BIIASE'IJ^ ^ 8.B: Ifoh*Mte SlaisPra^iarit^£mnarMiisUra W.P.^2'7) N6. ^4^ii08 PETmONER : KeshriSatnanu RESPONDENTS Versus Saiyay Kuntar Agrawal arid QtfWrs Appearance: Slm N.K. Bhadur^ ^MnseLfoFtiie pe?titumer. Shri R.R.Suilia, Panell.awy©rforttie Staite/respondeiitNo Non&fbrrespondeDts^.l a^ .3 WRITPETH'IQ^lM^t^RI'IG'LElStOF THE .••;,i:.lCC)NSTIIt»®W^l]^I^ :-..:: ' :.'.::: L OR^£'ffl8i)ER ::::,.,,.':(I6.09.201Q^'. . : ' :ll:i- :•: ;l,i: 'Ehes ^lmntff^resp^^ ;-perfonBaii|^||U||i||iai^||||||li^:|!xeG^ ^refleetedffl pi^^of;^l|J^|i.piJti|^^ unpresSiQn^fp^titioner/defenidaat^^ movectanEyplicdtionforexata^ finger print expert on the gEoundf4liatsthe petitioner never pu^llis thumfo impressiOn, but be aSwisys puts liis signature m the usijia! course. (^) PetitionCT's appluatu^ for exNnmat^ e^ert/handwntii% ^exp^ was ^owe ;1 :'i'iii;:''' !i.[ !;^:: 5A0^007.Pa|^stofhesii^;v<^^Iirect^teN^ of the expert.^)a 7/023008^^|de^i<i^flae^^^^ ^xEmunfir ofqu^stion docuinetitas^^thejexperf ffom wiiomjh&jwatip jtoj 'tiiSS IHtf :;i!l!l aa examine the finger print. The plaintiffalso agreed to^tfais name. The plaintiff also submitted the origirial agreement m the trial court on 16/01/2008. The trialcourt issued memoto the e3q)ert on 1 1/030008. (3) By the impugned order dated 1W closed the petitioner's right to examme the eiqiert by observing Ihat the petitioner lias notcompUed vnfhthe order dated 5/10;2007. (4) Lewiied TOunsel wcnild sulmut tfaat he has complied with all the conditions unposed by tfae trial court on 5/10/20Q7 and tiie order isillegalandperverse.^ i (5) On perusal ofthe order shee^ the Subnussion made by 1^ leamed counsel &r the petitipner appears to be correct. The cpndition iniposedmtheorder^sedbyAetrid^^^e^^ | cpmplied w^i|3^ t^ | j^sdictionMid^aspass^ltwuaFigned^t^^ | towhat conditionimposedon 5/10/2007 has^^n^^ | (6) In the resid^ the impugned order is set aside. The petitibneT 1 shall now examinfi Ifae fmger prmtexpert and^^^^ accordancewith law. f~~~—— ( prashaWKumar Mishra f ^ Si 1 j; 'ii' .;rii'