^ ^ / ila 1 IN THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No.^ l '> 705 PETITIONER '" Suresh Kumar, S/o. Pannanand Kotak, Aged abfmt 41 years, R/o. Kailashnagai', Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & D^sctrict Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT .^€- y^y .^'.cc-/yy •y^'" „ ,^ -^Padam Chopra, S/o. Late Sahatmal •c;...<f»Y.C^ ^- Chopra, Aged about 40 years, Proprietor of Arihant Pinance Company, R/o. Sadarbajar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BSDIA r' XI-HC-22 s^ ^ww^, w^v'w, Ridi'yy 311^1 i491<h fWy[Tst>*ll<»i PAr... V^ 200 1^% sn^rw f?=iN;3n^r shli'oufso •w^rwaRR'Hfsff t -^ ^3 .'^f^ft; Ai_*.o<^u.ys Shri Anup Mazuindar, cour The petitioner Iias preferre( the order datcd 1.12.2004 . Rajnandgaon whereby The appU^ defendan.t before the court b| witnesses aiid. for examiuation <j cheque by the haiidwriting expei| I havc faeard Icanicd counsf So far as the grievaace of tf bank employees is concenied, tliat no ilaine & address of t] •witaesses, fhereibre such. awitn^ A.s pcr Ordcr 16 Rulc 1 o( fumisli a Ust of wltnesses wittut issues, but sanie was not followl diiririg the coiu'se of arguiuents not able to convince this Couf iicccssanr witncsses ia tbis i&al iiis signature on tiie cheqiie an.f ffae petitioner hercui is fhat otqi i.e. naiae ot ttie person tn wlios) by him.. For proi7ing this, the neccssan-, tlic pctitioncr can pr<|) oral & documentaiv evidence. T| ariy siibstance m this petition tiKIIM'fl'l tfl1flTfffe<<!) {Rf'WK ^srf^iTan^r [sel for uie pennoner. ;((. this writ petizioii being aggrievecl by fcasscd t)v leatticd Distiict -Jiidge, ;ation of the peutioaer herein, who is i^low, regaidBig suminonuig oi tlie fi wninig on itiie proiiusson' note and It ^vas reiected. ;1 for tlic pctitioiicr, t|tie petitioner regardmg siunmoning of Iteamed District Judge has obseived ].ie witness was given m. tlie list of •ss cannot be summoned. CPC the pctitioncr was required to Ui 15 davs from fbe date ofa-amuig of fcu fov the ijeunoner hereia. Moreover, teanied counsel tbr the petitioner was |t that how the baiik eiQDlovecs are [tcr when thc pctitioncr has adinittcd (i proaote. The onlv dispute raised bv yer writmg in Uie c.heque and pronote tavour it was issued was not iTritten dvidence of anv banh eniplovee is not tlie same bv the records aiid other 'luerefore on this ground, ! do iiot fiad pr<pvc XI-HC-22 *<I*IMI sh*tra» 3^ '^WM^, y^\w[Q, fc|dlti^< 3ii^i '.isich V^ 200 3l1^TqiT f^iwsn^T sb'iiti (rfig' 37I^T?RITW(rf?(T +i-iifa<fl^ tiitidT^'fe^ <R|WK ^a.ri^irsn^r So far as the question of e^9Tuinauon ofwiituig in tiie pronote (and cheque by .hanchvriting expe^t is concenied, for tb.at also leaiTD.ed c/ )istrict Judge has obser?ed that ^t has been filed at a belated etage. The petitioner hercia was vi the beginniug but he had noC| eettuig fhese docunients exaiaid ;iv lauch awai-e about the fact siuce .inoved at fhe appropriate linie for ed by haiidwritiu.g expert. Naiae of l.handwritio.g experi was also not|slioiTn in. the li.st of witaesses- Even lotherwisc so far as fhe auestioili of haiidwritine in the pronote aad clicque is conccmcd, thc pctitioi|icr hercin caii adducc ofhcr cvidcnce ;'ritmg is nof ofliis handaiid he has ah~eady raised this objecfion ia Iliswntten statenient. Moreover, even Presidiiig OfScer is not precludefl froin com.parin.g the handwriting as oer provisions ofSection 73 oftt,ie Evidence Act. Thcrcforc, I do aot fiiid ativ illcgalih" or nifimiiti" in fhe ordcr passed bv leamfid Distnct Jud liable to be dismissed and accor<|iiagly, it is uismissed. Consequeiltly, M.W-P. No.2 ge, the petition of the petition 76/05 also stands distaissed.. Sdl- L.C. Bhadoo judge (^^f^) -Y-...