High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 01 CHH CK 0029

Maganlal Verma vs Urmila Verma

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 11 January 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (227) No. 10 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 377 words
1.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner has preferred this petition being aggrieved with the order dated 7.11.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.102A/2014 by the First Civil Judge Class-I to the Court of First Additional Judge, Raipur (CG), whereby, an application under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, for examination of the Forensic Expert has been dismissed.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit, in which, vide order dated 10.2.2020, the opinion of Forensic Expert was taken on record but only on the ground delay, the said application was dismissed vide the impugned order. He also submits that though the party appointed a new counsel through whom the document was filed but in an erroneous manner, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. He submits that the examination of the Forensic Expert is essential to prove the questioned will and since the cross-examination of defendant's evidence was not commenced, such application was preferred. Hence, he prays to allow the petition and quash the impugned order.

4.

Considering the nature of relief, notice against respondent No.1 is dispensed with and so far as respondent No.2/State is concerned, learned counsel for the State would submit that the State is a formal party.

5.

It is well settled that the interest of justice must be given utmost importance and procedures should not out-way substantial justice.

6.

The documents relating to the Expert opinion has already been taken on record by the trial Court and therefore, depriving the petitioner/plaintiff to prove such document particularly when a new counsel has been appointed and he has found that the material document was not exhibited, is not proper.

7.

In view of the above, this Court finds appropriate to allow the aforesaid application and thereby, quash the impugned order. Ordered accordingly.

8.

However, the petitioner/plaintiff shall pay a cost of Rs.3000/- by way of a Bank Draft prior to the commencement of the evidence of the Forensic Expert to respondent No.1. Further, on payment of Process Fees within a period of 7 days from the date of production of this order, the trial Court shall issue the necessary process to the concerned witnesses.

9.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed.