1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7411/2004 Poonam Chand Kothari Versus Smt. Geeta Devi & Another Date of Order :: 30th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. S.R. Surana for the petitioner Mr. Shobhit Tiwari for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This writ petition on behalf of plaintiff is directed against the impugned order dated 31st August, 2004 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by petitioner for sending the receipt dated 21st September, 2000 (Ex.-11/Ex.A-3) for hand writing expert's opinion has been rejected. 4. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance in the trial court, wherein the written statement was filed on 7th July, 2003. The rejoinder was filed on 9th September, 2003. The case for plaintiff's evidence was fixed. The statement of PW-1- 2 Poonam Chand was recorded on 18th December, 2003. The statement of other witnesses were also recorded. Thereafter the case was fixed for defendant's evidence and statement of DW-1 Geeta Devi was recorded on 25.2.2004. The statement of DW-11 was recorded on 20.7.2004 and when evidence of both the parties was closed, then on that day i.e. 20.7.2004, the plaintiff filed an application for sending Ex. A-3 for hand writing expert's opinion. The trial court rejected the said application vide order dated 31st August, 2004, which is impugned in this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred the statement of DW-1 Geeta Devi and other documents and contended that the Ex.A-3 is a forged document and it is necessary to send the said document for hand writing expert's opinion, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents contended that evidence of both the parties has been closed in the matter and case is fixed for final arguments and at this stage, the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. He contended that the rejoinder was filed on 9th September, 2003, wherein there was reference of receipt dated 21st September, 2000, but no application was 3 filed for sending the said receipt for hand writing expert's opinion. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application of the petitioner. The trial court has observed that the written statement on behalf of defendant no.1 was filed on 7th July, 2003 and disputed receipt Ex. A-3 was exhibited on 1st August, 2003. The evidence of both the parties has been closed and only thereafter the present application has been filed on 20th July, 2004. The trial court has observed that the case is an old one and present application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. The application cannot be said to be bonafide. The reasons assigned by the trial court appears to be justified and the same do not call for any interference by this Court. Apart from above, it is relevant to mention that trial court is fully empowered to compare the signature of the plaintiff-Poonam Chand Kothari on Ex. A-3 with other exhibited documents of the parties. 4 7. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 6375/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7411/2004 Poonam Chand Kothari Versus Smt. Geeta Devi & Another Date of Order :: 30th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. S.R. Surana for the petitioner Mr. Shobhit Tiwari for the respondents Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and it stand disposed of accordingly. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK