Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 declined where inconsistent handwriting-expert requests appeared delay-driven and concurrent orders were not perverse.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was held unavailable where concurrent orders refusing a request to send a cheque for handwriting examination were neither perverse nor arbitrary. The court noted that the first application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act was confined to the cheque contents and did not seek an opinion on the signature, while the later signature-based request was inconsistent with that earlier stand. As the matter had already reached the arguments stage and the applications appeared designed to delay proceedings, interference was declined. The petition was dismissed and the trial court was directed to decide the complaint expeditiously on its own merits and in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the applications for sending the cheque to a handwriting expert, and the revisional order affirming that rejection, called for interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The application first made under Section 45 and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act was confined to the contents of the cheque and did not seek an opinion on the signature. A later application specifically seeking examination of the signature was found inconsistent with the earlier stand. The record also indicated that the matter had reached the stage of arguments, and the applications appeared to be a device to delay the proceedings. In these circumstances, no perversity or arbitrariness was found in the concurrent orders of the courts below.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 227 was not warranted, and the challenge to the rejection of the applications failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to decide the complaint expeditiously on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Supervisory jurisdiction will not be exercised where concurrent orders are neither perverse nor arbitrary and where the impugned procedural request appears inconsistent with the party's own earlier stand.

---