my‘yx \mm zap m V 1‘3» ‘IN THE H’ON’BLE HIGH COURT F CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU ‘ Wmm. 33 10 PETITIONER Defendants No. 2 R C G. [2009 $§m§z§a Eamh ’ aw? Ram@Bhagwati Ram Ch drawansi; aged about 69 ears, S/o Late Bisahu Prasad Chandrawansi, Occgpatiom Agriculture, Villa‘ge— Parastarai Near Dhars'iva, Tahsiigg’ Distt‘ Raipur ('OG.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : ' 1. /S,mt. Rama Bai, aged about 55 years, D/o Late Posanlal Chandrawansi, W/o Di”. Tikendra Chandrawansi, R/o. Village ~Parastarai Near Dharsivalahsil8z, Distt.— Raipur (C.G.) 1Pzaintifj) w f 2. a Smt. Gend Bai, aged about, 75 years, W/o Late Posan Lal Chandrawansi, M .w'u .fqmym‘ a der-Wfivr tall-aw,“ b4; (Defendant no. 1) V (I: t.) 3. /Smt. Kum-und Chhaya Verma , aged about 41 years W/o ’ Arun Kumar Verma, R/o. Plot no. 111, Phase 3/A, Maitri Nagar Rishai Bhilai, Tahsil a Distt.— Durg (C.G.) (Defendant no. 3) 4. Additional Tahsildar, Circle Dharsiva, Tahsil Office Dharsiva, Tahsi1& Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant no. 4) 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Collector Raipur ' (C.G.) (Defendant no. 5) i ® r WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICILE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,WJ x Shrl Ashlsh Shnvsta v c fo te etitior aav Ad ate r h pne -Hear on admISSIon d The Intant tition is dire t aain th r d w pplictio ue d r u ) Wit ctio ‘1 C fed y i e o 2 b reje t eli r plictio te dda o din kin pt ritin er , e 2ete h a ep r i h t i ed Ac g nd s pe ed gst e orde ated I 00 by lXth Ad l tt udge (FTC) Ru 19 06 29 passed ditio a Disnc J aipr hereby, the aan ndr 0r 8 Rle 1(3 read h Sen 51 of CP preerr bthe petit her/dfendant N has een cted on the ground hat ar the apan fd by the efennt N 3 regarg tag or of handwg expert on cod was allowed and now the fendant No. /ptilonr as pplied for taking rort of handw ng expert on record whic is ot tiled within the time limit prescr by the t. I Shri Shivastaa submits tha evdence of etitioer is yet to ’ rv t i pn in a document sought to tiled is necessary for just ei p t pon hs csion of the case and infact the plication of he etitier a en rejeced without assigning any gent reasons. e t o Having heard learned cou appearing for te petonr, ‘nd after having perused the rec rds, l am’ of the considered pinion that the trial court ought t have permitted the report of andwritten expert to be taken ‘o record as the evidence of etitioner is yet to begin and docum nt sought to be filed seems to mWW WWa—Fs/95 11/2008—1 ,oo,ooo. i—w ,\_,_, Jesi ns l h itie 3E!W .Ww WEI? mm D (WC;>§9 &]>L....‘....j.vizoog’ .mm (13W) mmi‘m‘ WWW mm wmr£ “mm ammm ‘ be necés§dr§li"fdr 'just decision of case ijn the light of report of handwritten expert fled by defenda nt No. 3, whichwas allowed to . ‘ Ibetaken on recordbythetnalcourt i ‘ ‘ 3 u ’ . ‘ _ . § i Therefore the petition is allo ed. It is directed that the said report fled by the petitioner be tak on record subject to payment of a sum of Rs 1000/- as cost t be paid to plaintiffs and the petitioner be >pefmitted to exa ine handwriting expert, in accordance with law. However, if th . respondents herein feel some grievance‘then‘ theyi are at liberty to move appropriate application. Sd/— l i N.K.AgarWal Judge Sahu mamwmm—Fsms 11/2003—1,oo,ooo.