AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Bhansali, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dt. 25.09.2013 passed by the trial Court whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order VIII, Rule 1A(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed and a report of handwriting expert has been permitted to be produced by the respondent. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has not recorded any reasons as contemplated by Order VIII, Rule 1A CPC and the suit is at its fag end and filing of the said document would result in the delay in the suit.
I have considered the submissions.
This Court is of the opinion that once a discretion vested in the Court under Order VIII, Rule 1A(3) CPC has been exercised, unless the same is grossly unjust, the same cannot be interfered in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The proceedings in which the order has been passed are matrimonial proceedings and the respondent-wife has given reasons for the delay in producing the said document. Merely because the evidence of the person who is said to be in possession of the said report has not been produced, cannot be reason enough to reject the said application. In view of the above, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed.