[2025:RJ-JP:49621] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18564/2025 Samda Ram Son Of Shri Sujya, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Khairwadi, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rangnath Maheshwari Son Of Shri Hariprasad Mahesh- wari, Resident Of Plot No. 9 Vinayak Industries, Phase-II, Bindayaka, Industrial Area, Jaipur 2. Smt Munni Devi Modi Wife Of Shri Bhagwati Prasad Modi, Resident Of 1/43, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 06/12/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 02.08.2025, whereby the application filed by the defendant- petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act was re- jected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 16.05.2011, against the defendant-petitioner. The defendant-peti- tioner filed his reply way back in the year 2018, denying the exe- cution of the agreement as well as denying the thumb impressions on the agreement. 3. The petitioner had also submitted the expert opinion dated 06.10.2017 before the learned trial Court, to the effect that the [2025:RJ-JP:49621] (2 of 2) [CW-18564/2025] thumb impressions were not similar and did not match the admit- ted thumb impressions of the defendant petitioner. 4. On filing the report, he submits that it has now become nec- essary for him to get the matter examined through FSL under the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, and therefore, he contends that his application was wrongly rejected by the trial Court. 5. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 6. This Court finds that the suit was filed way back in the year 2014, the reply was filed in 2018, and the expert report was sub- mitted by the petitioner dated 06.10.2017. Since the said report forms the part of record, it is required to be duly proved by the defendant by leading appropriate evidence in his defence. 7. The Court cannot become a tool to collect evidence on behalf of any of the parties. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to in- terfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the order dated 02.08.2025. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed. 9. All pending application(s), if any, shall also dismissed. (BIPIN GUPTA),J PARSHANT /2