Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 836 (CAL)

Sajal Kumar Ganguly v. Deba Prasad Mitra

2007-11-26

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2007
JUDGMENT:- (1) AFFIDAVITS filed by the respective parties be kept with the record. (2) THIS revisional application is directed against an order being No. 108 dated 5.1.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court at barasat in Money Suit No. 8 of 1997. (3) TO resolve the dispute regarding the genuineness of signature of the defendant No. 1 appearing in Ext. 1, the defendant No.1 applied for appointment of a handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signature appearing in ext. 1 with his admitted signature appearing in Ext. 6 so that expert can submit his report about the genuineness of the disputed signature of the defendant No.1 in the said document. (4) THE said application having been rejected by the learned Trial Judge, the defendant No.1/petitioner filed a revisional application being C.O. No. 2437 of 2004 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 22.3.2005 whereby the learned Trial Judge was directed to appoint a handwriting expert for his opinion concerning the signature of the defendant No.1 appearing in ext.1 by comparing with the admitted signature of the defendant in Ext. 6. (5) PURSUANT to the said order a handwriting expert was appointed by the learned Trial Judge but the said handwriting expert ultimately submitted a report before the learned Trial Judge expressing his inability to compare the disputed signature of the defendant No.1 appearing in Ext. 1 effectively as the signature which was appearing in Ext. 6, being marked "a-1" and "a-2" are not sufficient for effective comparison with the disputed signature. (6) ACCORDINGLY, the learned Trial Judge by an order being No. 99 dated 8.5.2006 directed the defendant No.1/petitioner herein to give specimen signature to the handwriting expert so that the handwriting expert can effectively form an opinion by comparing the disputed signature with those admitted specimen signatures. (7) THE said order was subsequently recalled by the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order as the learned Trial Judge found that the order which was given by him directing the defendant to supply some specimen signatures is in conflict with the direction passed by this Honble Court while disposing of the earlier revisional application. (8) THE propriety of such an order is under challenge in this revisional application at the instance of the defendant No.1/petitioner. (8) THE propriety of such an order is under challenge in this revisional application at the instance of the defendant No.1/petitioner. (9) THIS Court is also informed by the learned Advocates of both the parties that the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Judge suo motu by invoking its power under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (10) THIS Court is also informed that no application was filed by either of the parties for recall of the earlier order by which the defendant No.1 was directed to supply some specimen signatures for effective comparison of the disgusted signature of the defendant No.1 with those specimen signature. (11) ON careful consideration of the entire materials on record, this Court holds that since this Court had already felt the necessity of comparing the disputed signature with the admitted signature of the petitioner for resolving the dispute regarding the genuineness of the signature of the defendant No.1 in Ext. 1 and further since the expert has submitted a report expressing his inability to form an opinion regarding the genuineness of the disputed signature of the defendant No.1/petitioner in Ext. 1 by comparing the same with the admitted signature in Ext. 6, this Court holds that there is no other alternative but to resolve the said dispute by way of comparing the disputed signature of the defendant No.1/petitioner with the specimen signatures to be supplied by the defendant No.1/petitioner. (12) IN such view of the matter, the order which was passed by the learned trial Judge recalling the earlier order being No. 99 dated 8.5.2006 whereby the defendant No. 1/petitioner was directed to supply some specimen signatures to the handwriting expert, stands recalled. (13) THUS, the petitioner/defendant No.1 is directed to supply some specimen signatures and handwriting to the learned Trial Court for proper comparison of the disputed signature of the petitioner/defendant No.1 with his admitted signature by a handwriting expert who is also directed to submit his report before the learned Trial Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of the reference. (14) THE learned Trial Judge is further directed to take steps for referring the said disputed signature along with the specimen signature of the defendant no.1 together with the admitted signature appearing in Ext. (14) THE learned Trial Judge is further directed to take steps for referring the said disputed signature along with the specimen signature of the defendant no.1 together with the admitted signature appearing in Ext. 6 to another handwriting expert for his opinion immediately after supply of the specimen signatures of the petitioner to the learned Trial Court. (15) THE learned Trial Judge is also directed to expedite the hearing of the suit on receipt of the report of the handwriting expert. (16) THE revisional application thus stands disposed of.