Kartik Misra and Others vs Partha Bagdi and Others

Prasenjit Mandal, J.—This application is at the instance of the Defendants and is directed against the order No. 118 dated June 6, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Bankura in Title Suit No. 92 of 2002 thereby rejecting an application for appointment of a handwriting expert.

The Plaintiffs/opposite parties herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Defendants/Petitioners. That suit is being contested by the Defendants/Petitioners and the suit is at the stage of recording evidence on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs produced certain documents for marking exhibits and the concerned R.S. record of rights was also filed which was marked as exhibit No. 2 with objection. The Defendants challenged the genuineness of the contents of the said document contending that certain fresh insertions had been made by deleting the original particulars. They filed an application for appointment of a handwriting expert to examine the R.S. record of rights marked exhibit No. 2 with objection to the following points as appearing at page No. 43 and 44 which are quoted below :

Work to be done by the handwriting expert :

To examine the document, marked Exhibit 2, scientifically and to report on the following points :

1). Whether the figures "211, 88 and 7" (written in Bengali script), appearing in the top portion of the front side of Ext 2, were written / not written by the same person who wrote the figures "878/879/4040/4039/4036/4043" (written in Bengali script) appearing therein?

2). Whether the writings (encircled by rend ink), appearing in the left hand side in the front portion of Exhibit 2, were written/not written by the same person who wrote the writings (encircled by green ink), appearing in the right hand side in the front portion of Exhibit 2?

3). Whether the writings (encircled by rend ink), appearing in the middle portion and in the upper portion of the right hand side in the front portion of Exhibit 2, were written/not written by the same person who wrote the writings (encircled by green ink), appearing the lower portion at the right side in the front portion of Exhibit 2?

4). Whether the initial signature and the date below the rubber stamp "Copied by" (encircled by red ink), appearing on the reverse side of Exhibit 2, had been interpolated by overwriting or not?

5). Whether the writings (encircled by red ink), appearing on the reverse side of Exhibit 2, were written/not written by the same person who wrote the writings (encircled by green ink), appearing in the front side of Exhibit 2 ?

6). To report if any of the words, figures and writings, apparently appearing at present either on the front side or on the reverse side of Exhibit 2, were written by tampering, distorting, erasing, overwriting or by any other foul means destroying the originally written words, figures and writings therefrom and, if possible, to decipher and mention such originally written words, figures and writings, since obliterated.

That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.

Now the point for consideration is whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer for appointment of a handwriting expert.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the Petitioners have challenged the genuineness of the contents of the said document, i.e. R.S. record of rights marked exhibit No. 2 with objection. But the original of the same is not available as per admitted fact that the concerned office of the Land Revenue Officer had been burnt at the time of Naxalite movement in 1971 72. So, there is no scope of comparing the document marked exhibit No. 2 with the original one. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the concerned document is forged or not. Moreover, it appears that from the observation of the learned Court and also on perusal of the materials on record that the certified copy produced by the Plaintiffs was issued in the year 1969, i.e. long before the date of filing of the suit and also the so-called date of burn of the concerned office of the Land Revenue Officer at Murshidabad.

This being the position, the learned Trial Judge has commented that there is little justification for the Plaintiffs for procuring certified copy in anticipation of the instant suit or the Naxalite movement. Since, there is no scope for comparing, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer. There are certainly other modes to show that contents of the document are not genuine, which I do not like to mention. Thus, there is nothing to interfere with the order impugned.

Accordingly, this revisional application is meritless and it is dismissed.

Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.