Vinay Sakhuja v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS

$~A-30 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CM(M) 115/2017 VINAY SAKHUJA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.D.Moitra, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr.Devvrat, Advocate for R-1 Ms.Madhumita Kothari, Advocate for R-2 with respondent No.2 in person Mr.R.K.Sachdeva, Advocate for R-4 to R-8

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 31.01.2017 CM No.3660-3661/2017 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 115/2017 & CM No.3659/2017 (stay) 1.

By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 23.12.2016 and 12.1.2017 by which two separate applications under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for filing the opinion/leading evidence of handwriting expert on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed. The present Probate Petition is filed regarding the Will of Shri Satyapal Sakhuja being Will dated 15.1.1989. 2.

The petitioners have completed their evidence. Thereafter the respondents No.4 to 8 moved an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act which was allowed and the said respondents were allowed to lead the evidence of handwriting expert. By the impugned order the trial CM(M)115/2017

court dismissed the application of the petitioner holding that the handwriting expert who was produced by respondents No.4 to 8 Mr.V.C.Mishra has been subjected to detailed cross-examination and hence in these circumstances there are no reasons to appoint another handwriting expert on behalf of the petitioner.

3.

It is a matter of fact that the petitioner in his list of witnesses did not mention about any handwriting expert. He has also moved the present application seeking to lead the evidence of a handwriting expert after the evidence has been closed and after the application filed by the respondents No, 4 to 8 for summoning of the handwriting expert was allowed. It is also noteworthy that in the list of witnesses filed by respondents No.4 to 8 in 2016 handwriting expert was also sought to be examined. 4.

In my opinion, there are no errors in the impugned order whereby it is held that examining of second handwriting expert will not in any manner help the case of the petitioner insmuch as a detailed cross-examination of the handwriting expert, namely, Shri V.C.Mishra RW-6 produced by the respondents No.4 to 8 has already taken place. The petition is at the stage of final arguments and needless delay without any purpose would be caused in case the petitioner is permitted to, at this stage, examine the handwriting expert.

5.

Petition is without merits and is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly JAYANT NATH, J JANUARY 31, 2017 n CM(M)115/2017