- (1.) PETITIONER has filed this review application for reviewing the order dated 05.02.2009 passed in W. P.(C) No. 183 of 2009.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the order of this Court needs to be reviewed because certain relevant aspects which have bearing in respect of the proceeding pending before the trial court, have not been considered in proper perspective and the relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ application has been dismissed. Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would want to explain that the petitioner had wanted to adduce the certified copy of the deposition of the handwriting expert which was recorded in Title Suit No. 27/89, in evidence in the suit which is presently pending before the court below on the ground that in the aforesaid deposition the same handwriting expert had categorically made statement that no opinion can be given on the basis of photocopy of documents. Learned counsel explains further that though the handwriting expert was examined in the proceeding presently pending before the court below and he was put the question on behalf of the petitioner as to whether he would be able to give any opinion on the basis of photocopy of the documents, his reply was evasive. In view of the evasive reply, the petitioner does need to adduce the deposition of the same witness which has been recorded in connection with another case and which bears relevance as far as the statement of the expert relating to opinion on the basis of photocopy of documents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents would object to the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that there is no merit in the same.;