@— M WRIT PETITION No. 156 of2005 PETITIONERS : 1. Chhake Lal Gupta S/o Kailash Ram aged about 35 years, Rjo village —— Gangoli (Dabropara) Chowki Basdai, Thana and Tehsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 2. Kailash Ram S/o Bholaram Gupta, aged about 75 years, R/o Village ~ Gangoli (Dabropara) Chowki Basdai, Thana and Tehsil Surajpur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through: Branch Manager Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District ~ Sarguja (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnlhotrl. J. Present: Smt. Anju Abuja, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER , (Passed on 11m day of November, 2008) The petitioner, by this petition seeks to challenge legality and validity of the order dated 19.10.2004 passed by the IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Smajpur, District Surguja, in M.Ac.c. No. 38/2004, whereby the application made under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872 for referring the affidavit to the hand-writing expert,was rej ected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the affidavit filed by Mr. A.K.Gupta, insurance witness, was not proper as there was some over writing in the said aflidavit. The petitioner prayed for referring the said amdavit to the hand-writing expert for opinion. The same was considered and the application of the petitioner was rejected. Thus, this \ petition. \ .w I@@ .24 The learned Judge found that the deponent has scored out the word ‘W" and substituted by ‘W". The scoring out word “6W” and substituting by word “W” was duly signed by the deponent before the same was sworn in before the authorities. Thus, the same cannot be held as unreiiable. The ahidavit was proper in accordance with legai requirement. Contention of Smt. Ahuja that striking of the word and replacing by another makes the amdavit unreliable, is noticed to be rejected in view of the findings recorded by the Court below. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Court below. The impugted order is just, proper and unexceptiona]. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should reh'ain itself dom interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases Where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is Writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the instant case, the petition 1s dismissed. No order asto costs. z/ J, Sm‘ ' ,1 » Satish K- Agmhot“ Judge