Pappu @ Rai Singh vs Smt. Chander Wati and Others

M. Jeyapaul, J.—Suit is one for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 15.1.2002 purported to have been executed by late Mauji Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. Defendants set up a plea in the suit that the signatures of late Mauji Ram were forged on the above agreement for sale.

Plaintiff originally examined tour witnesses and closed their evidence. Defendants on their part examined six witnesses including Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert as DW-6.

Plaintiff filed an application seeking permission to examine Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert for proving that the agreement and the receipt were really executed by late Mauji Ram. The said application was dismissed. In the revision preferred by the plaintiff as against the said order, this Court granted permission to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal.

Plaintiff thereafter examined one Saiyad Sarfraj Ahmad, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert as PW-5. The case was then fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments.

Plaintiff again filed an application seeking permission to examine yet another Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert on the sole ground that PW-5 Saiyad Sarfraj Ahmad, the Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, turned hostile. Trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the opportunity sought for by the plaintiff cannot be granted as PW-5, a Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, did not turn hostile as contended. Secondly, it was held that there would be no end for the trial proceedings if such permission was granted.

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the request made by the plaintiff to examine yet another Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert to prove his case cannot be foreclosed by the trial Court more especially when an opportunity was given to the plaintiff by the High Court to lead rebuttal evidence.

I find that there is no merit in the civil revision filed by the plaintiff. Firstly, as contended, PW-5 Saiyad Sarfraz Ahmad did not turn hostile. In other words, he was not treated as hostile by the trial Court on a request made by the plaintiff. Nor was he re-examined to clarify the ambiguity, if any, in the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination.

Plaintiff has not sought for examination of yet another Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert who also joined with PW-5 to give expert opinion which was already marked through PW-5. Plaintiff wants to examine yet another independent Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert in order to mitigate some damaging version, if any, given by PW-5 during the course of cross-examination. If such a course is adopted, the defendants will again come forward with an application to examine yet another Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert on their side to mitigate the effect of the evidence of yet another Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert sought to be examined by the plaintiff. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, there would be no end for the trial of the case under such circumstances. Further, the Experts are examined by the Courts on its own motion or at the instance of the parties only to get assistance to arrive at just conclusion. Trial Court has felt that the evidence on record would clinch the issues involved in the suit. Giving an opportunity to the plaintiff again to examine yet another Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert would definitely elongate the trial proceedings. I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the civil revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.