// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5734/2004 Mool Chand S/o Shri Jodha Ram Verma ...Petitioner Versus Tara Chand S/o Shri Banwari Lal & Another ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 01.04.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Mahesh Gupta, Counsel for petitioner None present for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant-tenant-petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 20th August, 2002 passed by the trial court whereby the application, filed by the petitioner for sending the signature of defendant on the disputed rent-note for expert's opinion, has been rejected. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for ejectment in respect of disputed property against the defendant-petitioner which is pending in the trial court and in the said suit the above application was filed which was dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the signature of the defendant on the rent-note was forged, therefore, it was a // 2 // duty of the trial court to send the rent-note for expert's opinion and the trial court committed an illegality in passing the impugned order which is liable to be set-aside by this Court. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting his application vide the impugned order. The trial court has observed that earlier the defendant filed a suit for injunction against the landlord-respondent with a prayer that he may not be dispossessed from the rented premises without due process of law and in the said suit he admitted the tenancy. The trial court has also compared the signature of the defendant from other documents which were available on the record like Exhibit-2 Receipt, Exhibit-A-1, Exhibit- 3 Vakalatnama etc., in accordance with Section 73 of the Evidence Act. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the finding and reasons of the trial court I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 3 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.4912/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5734/2004 Mool Chand S/o Shri Jodha Ram Verma ...Petitioner Versus Tara Chand S/o Shri Banwari Lal & Another ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 01.04.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Mahesh Gupta, Counsel for petitioner None present for respondents #### By the Court:- Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//