Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 777 (JHR)

Nishar Ahmad Khan v. Khublal Sao

2011-08-10

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
Judgment 1. IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the part of the order dated 16th July, 2008 passed in Title Suit No. 50 of 2004 by learned Sub Judge-IV, Koderma, whereby the petitioner's application for directing the defendant No. 1 to give his signature for the purpose of comparing the same by the expert along with the signature on Ext. 1 (Agreement) has been rejected. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Court below. I find that the learned Court below has refused the petitioner's prayer on the ground that both the parties have already closed their evidences and the suit was fixed for final argument and as such, it will not be just and proper to allow the plaintiff to send the document for examination by handwriting expert. Learned Court below has referred to and relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Sohar Mahto v. Mundrika Devi ( 2008 (2) JLJR 446 ). The Court below has noticed that the plaintiff/petitioner had not made any such prayer earlier when the evidences were led by the parties. The petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that there was no occasion for filing petition for examination of the signature by an expert, as there was no such pleading of the defendants. 3. MR. V. Shivnath, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the occasion for such application arose at the later stage when the defendant No. 1 denied his signature on the agreement (Ext.1). Learned counsel, in course of the argument, however, admitted that there is no change in the pleading of the respondents. 4. IT is well settled that any evidence beyond the pleading of the parties has no relevance. I, therefore, find that there was no fresh cause for the plaintiff/petitioner to file the said application at the fag end and final stage of the suit. Learned Court below has considered the petitioner's prayer and the attending facts and circumstances and has rejected the same by speaking reason. 5. I find no ground to interfere with the said order. 6. THIS writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.