IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATDRE AT BILASPUR (C.G. ) mm Equinox no.3Q/j /2oos Vinod Traders, Partnership Firm, Industrial Area, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Through its Partner Vinod Agrawal Vinod Agrawal, S/o. Shri Ramlal, Aged about 42 years, Sharad Agrawal, S/o. Shri Ramlal, Aged about 38 years, Ramlal Agrawal, Aged about 68 years, ?étitioners No. 2 to 4 are all Partners of Vinod Traders, Industrial Area, Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS //1. Bharat Trading Company, Through Proprietor Bhailal Patel, Aged about 4O years, S/oa Shri Bhimji Bhai Patel, Presently residing at New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur (C.G.) // WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIPTF. 2'27 OE CONSTITUTIGN O? INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF “If IN NATURE (n? QMIORARI I MDAMUS I PROHIBITION AND FOR 0m SUITELE WRIT OR’WRITS, ORDER OR ORDER$I DIRECTIw OR DIRECTIONS ETC. n Vmod Ttadeis and others Bharat Trading Company I ShriKshitij smt. Fouzia Sharma.c'ounse! Milzavmounselfotme for me‘respondent‘. petitioners _, I I RIT PET! ON UNDER ARTICL 27 OF TH - r ORAL ORDER ‘ (25.10.2010) The trial Court has rejected ,qefendants‘) prayer for permission te z u eXamine handwriting expert. cdnrming his rrabimy. (4) Ths appricatr‘cn (Annexme PIS) was moved segking permission to 7 examine. the handwriting expert. The trial Court has rejected'the agiptrcation ” \1 on the ground that from the subject‘document it is not clear as to which of the l and that the application riled on‘ behalf or , signature is of defendant No.2 W5 ; Ec nunmq defendaim aiso does not bear the signature of defendant No.2. The triai ‘ Court has also observed that the defendants have not made it clear as to ‘ which signature of a particutar document is required to be examined by the mnmmng expert. (5) Smt. Fouzia Milza, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that ‘ ~ the learned mat Court is not justined in rejecting the applicationon the t ground that it is not 'clear as to which ol’ me signamre on the “subject document, is of defendant No.2. She would further submit thatit is the plaintiffs own case that the said document bears the signature ofdefendant No.2, therefore the observation made by the triat Court is absoiuteiy incorrect. (6) would submrt that the appircation has not been submitted in accordance With - law and that the necessary ingredienm of the provrsion contained in Order'16 Rule 2 read with Section 45 of Evidence Act are missing in the application. He would submit that the trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction while passing theimpugned order and therefore the present is not a case warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. On the other hand Shri Kshrtii Shanna, counsel for the respondent (7) On perusal of the subject application (Annexure P/3) it would be clear that the defendants have made specitic statement that in the contirrnadon of the account of the year 1999-2000 and in other documenh tiled by the w piaintiff's the signature of defendant N02 are different and therefore the signature of defendant No.2 is required to be examined by the handwriting expert. ln View of the clear statement, the teamed triat Court was not justined in observrng that it is not clear as to which of the signature available on the ’ , ‘coniinnation of the account of the year 1999-2000 is of defendant No 2 The V documents are avaihbke in the record of the tn‘al Court and the parties are aware as to which particular signatures is alteged by the plaintiff to be of r defendant No. 2 in the subject document and other documents avaitabte in the record. (8) in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice woutd be sewed if the“ petitioners are granted an opportunity to move an application afresh as and ‘ when it is clear that which of the signature availabie in the documents proved - ' by the plaintiff belongs to the defendant No.2 and if the contention of die defendant No.2 about the discrepancy in the signature stilt remains open, the ' > defendants can move the application for examination of handwriting expert; Needless to say that if a duly constituted application is moved by the m defendant, but same shatl ‘be decided by the hial Court, in accordance with n law. (9) With this observation, the writ petition sands disposed of. ~ . Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge A?