Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 386 (UTT)

Surendra Bhagat v. Poonam Bhagat

2016-07-25

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. DHYANI, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.07.2013, passed by I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) and order dated 14.09.2015, passed by II Addl. District Judge, Haridwar (Annexure 10 to the petition). A further prayer has been made directing the court below to allow the application moved on behalf of the petitioner/defendant for verification of the signature of late Ram Pratap Bhagat made on will dated 23.12.1989 from the another handwriting expert. 2. A suit for partition was filed by the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein) against defendant (petitioner herein) and respondent nos. 4 to 23. Late Ram Pratap Bhagat is alleged to have executed a will dated 23.12.1989 in favour of Ghanshyam Bhagat. The defendant (petitioner herein) is questioning that will. In order to prove that will, plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein) brought a private handwriting expert in the witness box. Prior to that the private handwriting expert was called upon to submit his report. When that handwriting expert entered into the witness box, he was not cross-examined by the defendant (petitioner herein). 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the next date fixed for cross-examination of private handwriting expert is in the month of August 2016. Thereafter, at the instance of the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein), an application for report of handwriting expert was called and the private handwriting expert was examined by the plaintiffs, for cross-examination of which, a date has been fixed in the month of August 2016. 4. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that when opportunity for adducing evidence of private handwriting expert was given to the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein), why was the same denied to the petitioner (defendant herein)? When the petitioner moved an application before the trial court for permitting him to submit the report of private handwriting expert, the same was dismissed by both the courts (trial court as well as the revisional court), and hence present writ petition. 5. 1 to 3 herein), why was the same denied to the petitioner (defendant herein)? When the petitioner moved an application before the trial court for permitting him to submit the report of private handwriting expert, the same was dismissed by both the courts (trial court as well as the revisional court), and hence present writ petition. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer only to the extent that the petitioner may be permitted to compare the admitted signatures of testator of the will and thereafter that private handwriting expert may be permitted to be brought in the witness box to prove his report. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 3) is that the petitioner did not deny the signatures of the testator of the will on the document sought to be compared with the alleged executed will. It is the second submission of learned counsel for the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 3) that the petitioner did not file objections to the report of the private handwriting expert, who was brought by the plaintiff. The third submission of learned counsel for the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 3) is that the petitioner is not cross-examining the plaintiffs' private handwriting expert. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the private handwriting expert's report filed by the plaintiffs can only be contradicted by the petitioner (defendant) by means of filing another private handwriting expert's report. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after bringing his report on record, the petitioner shall cross-examine the plaintiffs' private handwriting expert. 8. When one party was given an opportunity to bring on record his private handwriting expert, it is in the interest of justice that the other side should also be given equal opportunity to file his private handwriting expert's report. A private handwriting expert's report can be brought on even kneel by the other side by producing his private handwriting expert's report. It is not a case in which the questioned document and admitted document have been compared by the Government handwriting expert. It will, therefore, be in the fitness of things that the petitioner (defendant) be also permitted to bring the report of his private handwriting expert, which may conveniently be cross-examined by the plaintiffs at an appropriate stage. It is not a case in which the questioned document and admitted document have been compared by the Government handwriting expert. It will, therefore, be in the fitness of things that the petitioner (defendant) be also permitted to bring the report of his private handwriting expert, which may conveniently be cross-examined by the plaintiffs at an appropriate stage. No new document will be required to be summoned for the purpose. The petitioner (defendant) wants to compare the signatures of the testator of the will by his signatures on the sale deed dated 18.11.1981, registered on 23.11.1981. Petitioner (defendant) is permitted to do so. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The impugned orders dated 22.07.2013 and 14.09.2015 are hereby set aside. 10. Let copy of the order be supplied to learned counsel for the parties within a period of 48 hours on payment of usual charges. 11. Stay application no. 13616 of 2015 also stands disposed of.