Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir Singh Chaudhary vs Dr. Ranjeet Singh Chaudhary And Others on 15 January, 2014
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CR No. 6241 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
CR No. 6241 of 2013 (o&m)
Date of decision : January 15, 2014
*****
Ranbir Singh Chaudhary
............Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Ranjeet Singh Chaudhary and others
...........Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
*****
Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for respondent no.1.
*****
MAHESH GROVER, J (ORAL)
The petitioner has impugned the order dated 3.10.2013. By virtue of this order, the learned trial Court had accepted the plea of the respondent to get the Will and the signatures thereon examined from the FSL at Madhuban. The petitioner was aggrieved by the acceptance of such a prayer by the learned trial Court. This Court stayed the operation of the impugned order which would imply that no follow up action ought to have been taken presently pursuant to the prayer of the respondent regarding the examination of the document from the said Laboratory.
For some reason the document travelled to the Laboratory in question and was examined by it. The report was Kukreja Ritudispatched to the Court and opened in the presence of the counsel 2014.01.22 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No. 6241 of 2013 (O&M) 2 for the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has now moved an application saying that since the operation of the impugned order had been stayed, any action taken pursuant thereto would be a nullity and should not have been taken note of by the learned trial Court. The petitioner-defendant opposes such a plea and justifies the report, more particularly, when he finds it to be in his favour and of no assistance to the respondent.
If a hyper technical view was to be taken then apparently no follow up action ought to have been taken by sending the report to the said Laboratory since the operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court. This has also given rise to some apprehension in the mind of the respondent who contends that since he was abroad, certain manipulations have been effected which has resulted in the petitioner readily accepting the report after it was sent to the Laboratory despite stay orders granted by the Court.
This Court has examined the issue and is of the opinion that if a certain amount of mistrust has crept in the exercise of getting the document examined from a Laboratory on account of the peculiar facts stated above, it would be just and appropriate that the document be got examined from some other Laboratory i.e Chandigarh or Hyderabad.
The parties have fairly adopted a consensual approach to say that the report of Laboratory of Hyderabad would be adequate. So, I am of the opinion that the impugned order and the entire Kukreja Ritu exercise conducted pursuant thereto especially regarding the 2014.01.22 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No. 6241 of 2013 (O&M) 3 examination of the document should be treated as a nullity leaving the parties to the outcome of the result of the examination of such a document from the Laboratory at Hyderabad. Necessary steps in this regard shall be made by the respondent-applicant by depositing the requisite amount in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of.
January 15, 2014 ( MAHESH GROVER )
ritu JUDGE
Kukreja Ritu
2014.01.22 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh