- (1.) CHALLENGE in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 24th March, 2009 as also the order dated 5th December, 2009 rendered by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents no. 2 and 3 filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant for specific performance of the contract in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, which came to be transferred to the court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District. It is alleged that the petitioner-defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 12th June, 2006. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant submitted that there were signatures at two places on document Ex.-1, hence he filed an application imploring that the document Ex.-1 be sent to hand writing expert for obtaining his report. THE learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner-defendant himself had admitted his signatures on the document Ex.-1 in his cross-examination and of-course he had denied those signatures to be his own in cross-examination. It is true that the signatures of the petitioner-defendant are at two places. It was difficult to describe as to which of the signature was forged and which was genuine. THE learned trial court also observed that both the parties had led their evidence and the case was fixed for hearing final arguments. Hence there was no reason to send this document to FSL for obtaining expert's report. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that in case the document is not sent to FSL, he will be deprived of seeking justice. E Converso, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is revealed that initially the application of the petitioner-defendant was dismissed on 24th March, 2009 by the trial court, wherein the petitioner-defendant had implored the court to send the document Ex.-1 to FSL for obtaining expert report thereon. When the trial court dismissed this application, he again filed a review application praying that the order dated 24th March, 2009 be reviewed, but the review application also stood dismissed vide order dated 5th December, 2009 by the concerned trial court. So far as the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that the document Ex.-1 be sent to FSL for obtaining expert report, is concerned, the document itself can be examined by the learned Presiding Officer of the court himself under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Secondly, the document is bearing signatures of the petitioner-defendant at two places. The petitioner-defendant himself has admitted A to F signatures to be his own in the examination-in-chief, of-course he has denied these signatures to be his own in his cross-examination. Thus, he is found to have given contradictory statements with regard to the signatures. Which statement of the petitioner-defendant is right and which is wrong is a matter of appreciation of evidence, which is required to be done by the learned trial court. Since the suit is at its final stage and fixed for hearing final arguments, the learned trial court is rightly found to have dismissed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, whereby he wanted the document to have been sent to FSL for obtaining expert report. Both the impugned orders rendered by the learned trial court are found to be just and proper and suffer from no infirmity. Both the orders have been passed by the learned trial court keeping in view the facts of the case. I do not find any good ground to upset the pure finding of facts as the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned the High Courts that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should be invoked sparingly and not in routine and the High Court should escape from interfering with the pure findings of facts.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince me to take a view contrary to that of the view taken by the learned trial court. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.;