Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM SWAROOP versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAM SWAROOP v THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - CW Case No. 4405 of 2004 [2007] RD-RJ 4207 (27 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4405/2004

RAM SWAROOP

Vs.

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO.1, KISHANGARHBAS,

ALWAR & ANR.

DATE: 27.08.2007.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE

Mr. R.K. Mathur for the plaintiff-petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Gaur for the respondents.

****

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.05.2004 passed by the Additional

District & Sessions Judge No.2, Kishangarhbas, Alwar, whereby the application dated 12.02.2004 moved by the petitioner-plaintiff has been rejected, by which the petitioner made a request that thumb impression put on the agreement in question be examined by the Finger

Print Expert, which has been refused by the Court below, against which this writ petition.

Having heard rival submissions of the respective parties and upon careful perusal of the order impugned dated 11.05.2004 passed by the Court below, I find no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record which requires any interference by this Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

However, as observed by the trial Court, after leading evidence, if any case is made out by which finger print made on the agreement in question is required to be examined by the Finger Print Expert, then the petitioner can move fresh application to this effect and after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties, the trial Court shall pass appropriate order at appropriate stage. But, in any case, at this stage, no case of any interference is made out.

Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

The ex parte interim order dated 23.07.2004 granted by this Court is rejected. The stay application also stands rejected.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.