HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLB BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRIT PETmON N0.1162 OF 2005 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS versus 1. 2- 3. Loknath, S/o Naftkiram Adhariya, aged about 63 years, Agriculturist, R/o Village Madha, Tahsil & Dist. Janjgir, at present , R/o Vill. Pandhai, Tahsil & District ^Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^. '11- Pitamber, S/o Hari Singh Adhariya, aged about 58 years, Agriculturist, R/o Village Hadha, Tahsil & Dist. Janjgir - Champa (Chhattisgarh) Mst. Rambai, W/o Patela Suryavanshi, aged about 48 years, Village Malikram, Son of Guha Suryavanshi, aged about 38 years, Both residents ofViltage Singhatdeep, Tahsil & Dist. Janjgir - Champa (Chhattisgarh) Present: Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, leamed counsel for the petitioner. ORAL QRDER (Passed on 5m January, 2006) Notwithslanding the service of notice, the respondents remain unrepresented. Heard ieamed counsei for the petitioner - ptaintiff. The petitioner has instituted a civii suit for possession of suit land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint for deciaration that he is the owner and title-holder of the suit iand and tor permanent injunction. The respondent No.1 , in his written statement dated 4-10-1988, has steted that, the agreement dated 30-10-1983 and another agreement dated 1-12-1983 and family arrangement dated 25-4-1984 were signed by the petitioner - plaintiff. In view of the above defence raised by the defendant - respondent No.1, the m petitioner - plaintiff made an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act asserting thaf he has not signed the aforesaid documents and those documents have been forged and fabricated and, therefore, he prayed the tria! Court to refer those signatures to be examined by c/ handwriting expert. The said appiication is dismissed by ths iearned trial Judg®on the ground that though an opportunity to make application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidetice Act was aiven to the plaintiff - petitioner on 7-4-1993, he did not make use ofthe opportunity. What is contendad in the writ petition is that the fact that the reason gn'en by the trial Court to reject application is fectually incorrect, and in fact, on 7-4-1993, the case was not posted nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to make appiication under Sectlon 45 of the Indlan Evidence Act. In support of the above contention, the petltloner has appended certified copy of the entire order-shests at page 40 of the materia! papers. The case was listec! before the trial Judge on 8-1-1993 and that day the case was adjourned to 18-6-1993. The certifiod copy of the order-sheets does not show that the case was listed before the leamed triai Judge on 7-4-1993. Be that as it may, in the context of the case and particuiariy the fact that by virtue of the interim order, Uie matter is pending in this Court for all these months. in the result, the writ petltlon is ailowed. The impugned order is set aslde and the interlocutory application is atlowed as prayed fcr. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice S.Singh