§1 WW,WW,W mw v cm. m?- 111200 Wm mm (Wu) RES?GEBEE‘§T Mohan Lai Janghare, Sio DP. Jangham, agéc‘x npnnPation 3gp sepn'm: pin mm jenxs, WW“ ”W, “,v X“ , 31mm no. z4, hector—l, Bimai Nagar, : “Am; aé I ur 1 nnr CGh§ 1 ET¥TIGP3 uam warn-m n-srnvnun‘u vv‘vnun n mym- n any an nun-n x Wm! rmiiliUlH UlVUnR 6F iiWDiia $.3' riUN. bHKl UHIKENDKA MiSk‘IKA, J 17-9-28i‘}8 Shu' Shrawan AgrawaiJ Adv. for fhe pmitiom-tr. ijjy‘ tuiS petition under Amide 227 of th€ Constitution of iniiia, tha petitioner has impugn’ the orfkr of fmneXure P-i, Wlmreb'y‘ learned 12th Additional Dis t. Judge .(FI‘C), Burg has reiected the application of th€ petitioner under Order 18 R1116 1'7 of CFC. for roaming tho piaintiff for hiia‘ ”urther cross-Examinan'on and aiso his appiication under Secr‘ion 1" i of CFC for referring tho choque to me hand writing expert for V riflcation of i116 enuioo in tho. Cheque. Heard. Loarnod tnai Court ha‘ rajectod both tho applications with an obsorvation that on tho date when the piaintiff was cross—examined, 110 prayer was made by the ounsoi appoaring for tho defendant for e WWW $aimm - ‘ E'i‘i'i‘iéf‘IER TC C‘laidrakar, 8/0 RG Chandrakar, agad DEFEBEDAET awout 44 years, Qccupation BS? Sswice v Parsonm'i No. 139‘076, Tokml No. 144§9 Personnti Office, Electric T6Chnicai Laboratngt, R.C-.L nH}1ding, Bhilai Stssl Plant? 5mm, Rio Qtr. No 39—D, Ruwaballdha, Ser‘fm” Bh11m‘, Pnhce SALL Bhilai Nagar, Tansu and Dlst‘t. Durg ((3“) Versus mmwmlDrwWg’Zg? c m.m (Wu) WWW WW%‘@€TW $W¢m€§r . adjoummeut on the ground {Hat the wimasaSEs are. to be examinsd by originai counsei and t11€ instam application waS iiisd afmr boih the parties bani cioseci their evidence. 5mma11y the prayer for referring the cheque to hand writing expert was rejected with all observation that the defendant did not exere ise this right at the time of evicience of the defendant and has flied the inStant appiication at the Stage when the matter was flxeei for Iinai argument and further on the ground that the suit is based on agreement dated Zn‘i June, 2004‘ After healing eonnsei for the reasons; assi'gneti by the appiications, this Court is of the consiriered opinion that there is no iiiegah'ty, infmnity or jurisciictionai error committed by the trial Court warranting interference by this (pomt in exercise of jurisdiction untier Artieie 1227 of the Constitution oiindia. the parties, and after going through trial Court for rejecting the above The petition is ciisinissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge