Ram Avatar Agrawal v. Dhansing
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 932 of 2017 Ram Avatar Agrawal S/o Narang Lal, Aged About 67 Years, Caste- Agrawal R/o Village Dipka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Dhansing S/o Akalu Ram, Aged About 55 Years, Caste - Rohidas, R/o Village Ghunghuti @ Rampur, Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2. Janki Bai, Wd/o Mansing Rohidas, Aged About 45 Years, Caste- Rohidas, R/o Village Ghunghuti @ Rampur, Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
3. Ram Kuwar Wd/o Akalu Ram, Aged About 75 Years, Caste- Rohidas, R/o Village Ghunghuti @ Rampur, Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Parvati Rathore W/o Shri Anil Kumar Rathore, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Utarda, Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Korba District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 15/12/17 1.
The petitioner / plaintiff's application filed under Section 151 of the C.P.C. for examination of the subject document by hand writing expert has been rejected by the trial Court by order dated 09.11.2017 on the ground that the plaintiff's evidence has already been closed on 03.09.2016, against which this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been preferred by the petitioner.
2.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law and is liable to be
set aside.
3.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order with utmost circumspection.
4.
On careful perusal of the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that the reason assigned by the trial Court is sufficient and valid and the trial Court has exercised the discretion strictly in accordance with law in which I do not find any jurisdictional error. 5.
Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka