IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIseARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Arman No%/08 OF 200935N§§£ @EE‘é£§i PETITIONER :M’k Kas’rur‘chand Burad son of Shr'i (Defendant) Khe’rmal Bur‘ad, aged abouf 62 years, Propriefor' M/s Mahvir‘ Chand Ashok Kumar Jain, Halwai Line, Main Sarafa, Raipur. Vs RESPONDENT : (MMTC, a 90w. of India (Plain‘riff) EnTerpriSe, Corpora’re Office af Core-1, Sporfs Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Regional office— 401, Rajiv Gandhi Complex, Ku'rchar'i Chowk' Raipur‘ (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M: \>§W HIGH COUR'F OF CHHATTISGARH AT BHLASPUR Wnt Pet1t10a(227; No. 7108 OF 2009 Pemioner Defendant Mfs Kasturchand Burad Versus Resgondem MMTC, a Govt. of india Enterprises. Piaintiff ‘ ~ WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 227 9F C§NSTITUTDN OF INDIA. (SB' Hon'ble Mr N K Aqarwai J_) resem : Shn BP sharma Advocate forthe petitioner ORAL ORDER I (Passed 0n 9‘" day of December, 2909) 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner/defendant, being aggrieved by thé order dated 03.09.2009 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Xth Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 2-8/08, has fiied the instant petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on defendant’s application, the trial court appointed Dr. I SK. Dhenge, and on respondent’s application, appointed Shri B.Lal, Handwriting experts to examine the disputed documents and to submit report accordingly. After receipt of report of both the handwriting experts, the petitioner, by filing an application dated 25.06.2009 (Annexure P/6), prayed for appointment of third handwriting expert. The trial court, videimpugned order dated 03.09.2009, dismissed the said application holding that the handwriting lexperts have been appointed by the court as per choice of the parties and no case is made out to appoint any other handwriting expert. Hence this petition. I § P evidence, the trial court will record the finding in accordance with law on its own merits. But so far as the application preferred by the defendant is concerned, the same has rightly been dismissed by the trial court. Once report of handwriting expert appointed at the instance of the parties are on record, permission to appoint further expert to counter the report already submitted would result in miscarriage of justice and would delay the process of law, and therefore, order passed by the trial court cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The petitioner is utterly failed to demonstrate any grounds warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. it is well settled principle of taw that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of tndia, should refrain itself from 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 of the record, which is not in the present case. 12. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge limine. r.