- (1.) The petitioners have filed a most frivolous writ petition before this court challenging the order dated 16.4.2014 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, by which the learned Judge has rejected an application filed by the petitioners under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, for sending the power of attorney to the FSL for its report.
(2.) The petitioners had filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 29.9.2005 made in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 by respondent No.4, Nandlal. The petitioners had contended that the power of attorney is a forged document as his mother Smt. Ramjanki had never signed it. Smt. Ramjanki was arrayed as defendant No.9 in the said civil suit. However, in her written statement she not only admitted her signature on the power of attorney, but also admitted that she had granted the power of attorney to Nandlal, respondent No.4 before this court. Despite the admission made by Smt. Ramjanki about the authenticity and veracity of her signature on the power of attorney, still an application was filed by the petitioners under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, for getting Smt. Ramjanki's signature examined by FSL. By order dated 16.4.2014 the learned Judge dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this court.
(3.) It is rather surprising that when the maker of the power of attorney herself has admitted her signature, and has clearly admitted that she has given this power of attorney to Nandlal, obviously the learned Judge was justified in dismissing the application.;