- (1.) Instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner assailing the order dt.11/08/2011 by which the trial court, while allowing the application filed by the defendants-respondents, ordered that the endorsement on the back of Exhibit-8 shall not be read in evidence.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in a suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner seeking correction regarding his date of birth in the service record and further to quash and set aside the order dt. 31/05/2006 issued by the defendants-respondents, after filing the written statement by the defendants-respondents and after the placement of the documents by the parties before the trial court for admission and denial and after the documents being exhibited, the defendants-respondents preferred an application before the trial court to the effect that the endorsement on the back of Exhibit-8 is forged and, therefore, should not be read in evidence. The plaintiff-petitioner filed reply to the said application contending that the application has been filed with an intention to delay the proceedings and that the application is neither supported by affidavit nor there was any mention regarding provisions under which application was preferred and further the documents exhibited should not be de-exhibited. The ld. trial court allowed the said application vide order impugned dt. 11/08/2011, as aforesaid. Hence instant petition by the plaintiff-petitioner.
(3.) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner vehemently contended that the order impugned suffers from an error in law and hence deserves tobe quashed & set aside as once the document has been exhibited, it need not be de-exhibited by the trial court. In support thereof, he relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Javer Chand and others vs Pukhraj Surana, 1961 AIR(SC) 1655 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Singhal Vs. ADJ No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur & ors., 2011 3 WLC(Raj) 427.;