MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Section 73 readwith Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act imploring the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bharatpur that the writings and signatures of respondent-defendants should be taken in the Court and the same should be sent with the disputed signatures to FSL for obtaining the opinion of Hand Writing Expert.
(2.) THE learned trial court, having heard the petitioner-plaintiff ordered that the application filed under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act shall be taken into consideration and adjudicated after the completion of evidence of both the parties. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of State (Delhi Adminsitration) Versus Pali Ram reported in 1979 Supreme Court 14 and contended that in this case also, the Hon'ble Apex court directed the same to have been sent to Foreign Science Laboratory for assistance. It is relevant to record that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold good in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the case of State (Delhi Administration) supra, there was on accused, who was facing a criminal trial. In that case the accused was directed to give his writing as also signatures by the court. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the court during an enquiry asked the accused to give his writing or signatures in open court, he did not exceed his powers provided under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act. It has not been held by the Hon'ble Apex court that the judge should not exercise his powers conferred on him under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. It has also not been held that any disputed signatures must necessarily be sent to FSL for obtaining the expert opinion.
(3.) AS stated earlier, the impugned order is found to have suffered from no infirmity and I do not find any ground to interfere with the same as the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held in plethora of cases that the High Court should not invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution unless the impugned order is found to be totally perverse, contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice, but that is not the case in the case on hand. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold, which stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.;