Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Buta Singh vs Ran Singh on 24 January, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5118/2019
Buta Singh S/o Mitthu Singh, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste -
Bajigar, Resident Of Parlika, Tehsil - Nohar, District -
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
Ran Singh S/o Shri Amilal, By Caste - Jat, Resident Of Parlika,
Tehsil - Nohar, District - Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. MR Pareek on VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Nehra on VC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
24/01/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, the lawyers have been advised
to refrain from coming to the Courts.
The writ petition has been preferred claiming the following
relief:-
"That order impugned order dated 08.03.2019 (Annex.4)
passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1,
Nohar, Hanumangarh in revision petition NO.01/2017
tilted as Ran Singh Vs. Buta Singh may kindly be
quashed and set aside and the order dated 18.01.2017
(Annex.3) passed by the learned trial court may be
restored."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the remand
order for conducting fresh FSL made in the revision petition is
contrary to law as the respondent had not raised any plea under
(Downloaded on 27/01/2022 at 08:23:51 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-5118/2019]
Section 45 of the Evidence Act and also the same is hit by Section
68 of the Evidence Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
controversy was pertaining to a pronote having been signed by
the petitioner or not, for which the samples were taken and FSL
was called for and now any remand order would be detrimental to
the cause of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed in the
matter of Chhitar Lal Vs. Chhotu Lal & Ors. (D.B. Special
Appeal (W) No.1126/2012, decided on 06.09.2012, in which
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has said that the raising
of issue under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for the first time by
the party in question was not permissible.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the time
lag of ten years entitled the respondent to have a fresh FSL with
the accepted true copies of the document of the period in question
to arrive at a scientifically considered conclusion.
This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the record of the case, finds that the precedent law cited
by learned counsel for the petitioner would not apply in the
present case, as the question of FSL was raised by the petitioner
himself under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and thus, he cannot
be allowed to go back and challenge the discretion on the ground
that the respondent did not bring the application under Section 45
of the Evidence Act.
This Court also finds that the impugned order passed by the
revisional court merely remands the matter back, as there is an
(Downloaded on 27/01/2022 at 08:23:51 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-5118/2019]
error lag in the FSL examination of document with the true copies
of the accepted document.
In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the learned
revisional court is perfectly in accordance with law as the learned
revisional court has merely remanded back for fresh FSL after
comparing it with the accepted signature of the duration in
question.
In view of the above, no cause of interference is made out in
the present petition, hence, the same is accordingly dismissed.
Stay petition as well as all pending applications also stand
dismissed accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
36-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
