Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 325 (JHR)

Syed Askari Hadi v. Faiz Murtaza Ali

2012-03-02

R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
Judgment I.A. No. 669 of 2012 This I.A. has been filed on behalf of defendant-Faiz Murtaza Ali for modification of the order dated 15.07.2011 to the extent that the order imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- may be recalled. Order dated 6th January, 2012 may be referred under which similar prayer was rejected. However, three weeks' time was granted, as prayed, for deposit of such cost. Again this I.A. has been filed. From the orders passed in this case including the order dated 15.7.2011, it will appear that defendant is abusing the process of law by filing frivolous applications and other cases only with a view to delay and drag the disposal of this suit. The defendant is directed to deposit the said cost of Rs.10,000/-( Ten thousand only) with an additional cost of Rs.5,000/-( Five thousand only) within three weeks from today, failing which the defendant-Faiz Murtaza Ali will appear in person on the next date for passing appropriate orders. In the circumstances, this I.A. is rejected. I.A. No. 544 of 2012 This I.A. has been filed on behalf of defendant-Faiz Murtaza Ali indicating the admitted signatures of the testatrix on four documents described in para 1. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff, submitted that the prayer with regard to the documents described in para 1(A) were already rejected on 15.07.2011. He further submitted that the documents described in para 1(C) are connected with the documents described in para 1(A). He also submitted that the documents described in para 1(D) are not being admitted by him. He further submitted that though this Court rejected the prayer for sending the documents described in para 1(B) by order dated 15.07.2011, but as the handwriting expert has asked for contemporaneous documents, he is agreeable to send the documents described in para 1(B). In my opinion, if a person has signed a number of documents during his lifetime and they are lying here and there, it is not necessary to call all of them from all places. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that the signature in the documents described in para 1(B) are not disputed by the parties, and they can be sent to handwriting expert. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that the signature in the documents described in para 1(B) are not disputed by the parties, and they can be sent to handwriting expert. Accordingly, the learned Sub Judge-X, Civil Court, Patna is requested to send the Original Plaint and Vakalatnama filed in Title Suit No. 262 of 1991-Shamim Amna Imam Versus the Muzaffarpur Properties Private Limited and others, after keeping a photo/true copy of the same, by special messenger, the cost of which will be born by the defendant. The defendant will deposit Rs.2,000/-(Two thousand only) as tentative advance cost within two weeks from today. With this observation and direction, this I.A. stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the parties, as prayed.