INJ'HEHIGHCOURT QF JUDIGATURE AT BILASPUR WP(227)<aSL5 /2009 _ PETITIONERS PLAINTIFF s.e'. Ashok Singh aged 45 years S/o Narayan Singh R/o Janjgir Tah. Janjgir District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G. B ¥ Ih" VERSUS •^' RESPONDENTS DEFENDENTS '1^^"" ^p' ^ fft^' 1) Ramvishalaged58years S/o Brihaspati Kashyap R/oVill- Mahuadih Tahsil- Janjgir it. Janjgir-Charripa (C.G.) 2) ' State of Chhattisgarh Througb CollectoF Janjgir Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRITE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA //^- ~\ ^l, ^!-^ ^ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition r227)No. 225/2009 PETITIONER : AshokSingh Versus RESPONDENTS : Ramvishal and another Appearance: Shri Sri Kumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri G.V. Krishna Rao, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for respondentNo.l. Shri R.R. Sinha,Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondentNo.2. ^TUT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 227 OF THE coNSTmmoN OF ENDIA ORAL ORDER (18.02.2011) By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected petitioner's/plaintiff's application underSection 45 ofEvidence Act to examine finger print expert by taking the thumb impression of respondent. (2) Plaintiff has filed the suit for specific perfonnance. The defendant is denying the execution of agreement. After closer of plaintifFs evidence the; subject application under Section 45 of Evidence Act was moved to seek permission to examine finger print expert and for that the Trial Court was requested to direct the 't defendant to submit thumb impression so that it can be compared with the thumb impression available in the agreement. (3) Learned Trial Court has rejected the application on the grouad ythat the application has been preferred after closer of plaintiffs .^f336^: /'>9^ ~w%. j ^•S'^y^^.f^, '•^^!^'^-^ ^iBai»rJ 'w" ..^ "8 9 iJ y f y -^ 2 evidence with a view to delay the proceeding and that the application should have been moved immediately when the defendant started denying execution of the agreement by way of filing the written statement. (4) In the opinion ofthis Court, the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court to reject the application is not proper. In a case ofthis nature, if an application is moved at the initial stage without recordin^ evidence of any other witness, it may be premature, however when the plaintiff having entered the witaess box and having tried to prove his case by examining other witnesses, later on moves the application before the commencement of the examination of the defence witnesses, the application cannot be said to be belated. (5) In view of the above, fhis Court is of the opinion that the application was preferred atthe appropriate time and the leamed Trial Court should have allowed the application to do substantial justice and afFord all possible opportunities to the parties to prove their respective cases. (6) Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, the application under Section 45 ofEvidence Act stands allowed. Leamed Trial Court is directed to proceed farther in accordance with law. Sd//- . Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge v^