[2025:RJ-JP:41532] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12870/2025 Smt. Santra Devi W/o Shri Bhagchand, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Village Kadedha, Tehsil - Kekari, District Ajmer. (Raj) ----Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus 1. Chandra Prakash S/o Pokhar Lal, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Kota Road, Kekari, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer. (Raj) 2. Dhanraj Dhupiya S/o Shri Ugra Singh S/o Nemi Chand (Since Died), Through LR's 2/1. Smt. Jatan W/o Shri Dhanraj Dhupiya, 2/2. Shatrunjai S/o Shri Dhanraj Dhupiya, 2/3. Anima D/o Shri Dhanraj Dhupiya, 2/4. Garima D/o Shri Dhanraj Dhupiya, 2/5. Mahima D/o Shri Dhanraj Dhupiya, All resident Of House No. 20/22, Near Baheer School, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. 3. Bank Manager, S.B.I. Branch Kekari, District Ajmer (Raj.) ----Non-Petitioners/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 13/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Kekri, District Ajmer, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872, seeking expert [2025:RJ-JP:41532] (2 of 3) [CW-12870/2025] opinion on the signature of non-petitioner/defendant No.2 over the disputed sale deed dated 06.08.2012 has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the learned court below has erred in dismissing the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. He further submits that, in the interest of justice, the said application ought to have been allowed, as there are dissimilarities in the signatures of non- petitioner/defendant No.2 - Dhanraj Dhupiya appearing on the disputed sale deed dated 06.08.2012, the written statement, as well as the application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the record. 4. It is an admitted position that the present suit has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 06.08.2012 executed by non-petitioner/defendant No.2 in favour of non-petitioner/defendant No.1, on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff is the daughter of Shri Ugrasingh and that non-petitioner/defendant No.2 had no right, title, or interest to execute the said sale deed dated 06.08.2012. In the entire plaint, the petitioner/plaintiff has nowhere averred that the sale deed dated 06.08.2012 does not bear the actual signature of defendant No.2. On the contrary, the petitioner/plaintiff has categorically stated that the sale deed dated 06.08.2012 was executed by non-petitioner/defendant No.2 in favour of non- petitioner/defendant No.1. 6. It is also undisputed that no issue has been framed in the matter with regard to the fact that the disputed sale deed dated [2025:RJ-JP:41532] (3 of 3) [CW-12870/2025] 06.08.2012 does not bear the signatures of the non-petitioner/defendant No.2. 7. From a bare perusal of the record, it is also evident that the plaintiff/petitioner, in her evidence, has not uttered a single word regarding the fact that the disputed sale deed does not bear the signature of the non-petitioner/defendant No.2 - Shri Dhanraj Dhupiya. Therefore, it appears that the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, just to delay the disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the present Civil Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/3