Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 21 (JHR)

Saukat Ali v. Sthiti Oraon

2009-01-07

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Order Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, earned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. The order dated 9.7.2004 passed by Sub-Judge-VII, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 30/1997 is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner. By the aforesaid impugned order, the learned Trial Court has refused the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner to send Ext.-A/2 and Ext.-C produced by the defendant to the handwriting expert to examine as to whether the aforesaid two documents are interpolated or are tampered. 3. The facts in short are that the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 30/1997 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ranchi for declaration of his right and title over the suit properties being Plot Nos. 695 and 696 under Khata No. 84 Area 55 Kathas, more fully described in the suit. The defendant appeared in the suit and filed their written statements. They also filed certain documents including the certified copy of the order passed in M. Case No. 57-R-8-11 of 1959-60 i.e. the order granting permission under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. 4. According to the case of the petitioner, during the trial, six witnesses were examined by the plaintiff and several documents were adduced in evidence which were marked as Ext. as Exts. 1 to 16 including the certified copy of the Registered Deed No. 3506 dated 2.6.1961 on the strength of which, the defendants claimed to have purchased the property after obtaining permission under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. The said document was marked as Ext. 14. The certified copy of the order granting permission under Section 46 of the CNT Act was filed on behalf of the defendant and was marked as Ext.-A/1. 5. The further case of the petitioner is that on behalf of the defendant, a document namely a Sale Deed was filed claiming to be the original of Ext. 14 but in bare perusal, it appeared that the said alleged original document was in fact interpolated and tampered one because the writings and the ink were not similar In all the pages. The petitioner alleged that the document Ext.-C produced on behalf of the defendants were interpolated and tampered document and it did not tally with the original i.e. Ext. 14 which was. produced by the plaintiff. The petitioner alleged that the document Ext.-C produced on behalf of the defendants were interpolated and tampered document and it did not tally with the original i.e. Ext. 14 which was. produced by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff/ petitioner doubted the genuineness of the aforesaid two documents i.e. Exts. A/1 and C produced on behalf of the defendant and therefore, he, by filing an application, made a prayer before the Trial Court to send those two documents for examination by the handwriting expert. The prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner was objected to by the defendant and the Court below, by the impugned order dated 9.7.2004, has also rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for sending those documents to the handwriting expert on the ground that the same would delay the disposal of the suit and the plaintiff can raise all such plea at the time of final hearing. 6. After hearing the parties and after examination of the impugned order, I find that the learned Trial Court has rejected the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner only on the ground that sending the documents to the handwriting expert would delay the disposal of the suit. In my view, when such serious doubt about the genuineness of the document was raised by the plaintiff/ petitioner, which was going to the root of the case and therefore, in such a situation, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the prayer of the plaintiff for examination of those documents by handwriting expert for the ends of justice and fair trial. 7. If the Trial Court, after perusing those documents himself would have come to the conclusion that there is no interpolation then his order of refusal could have been said to be justified. But that is not the case here. The prayer has been refused only on the ground of delay, this, in my view, does not appear to be Justifiable. 8. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.7.2004 passed by Sub-Judge-VII, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 30/1997 is hereby set aside and the Court below is directed to send those two documents i.e. Exts. The prayer has been refused only on the ground of delay, this, in my view, does not appear to be Justifiable. 8. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.7.2004 passed by Sub-Judge-VII, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 30/1997 is hereby set aside and the Court below is directed to send those two documents i.e. Exts. A/2 and C to the handwriting expert for its examination as prayed for by the plaintiff/petitioner at his cost within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order with a direction to the handwriting expert to send his report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such documents. After the report of the handwriting expert is received, the Trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the suit finally as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such report from the handwriting expert.