Ramkaran vs Bherulal And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short, 'the defendant') against the order dated 2.11.2020 passed by Addl. District

Judge, Bundi in Civil Suit No. 36/2011, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) readwith Section 151 CPC has been

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent-original plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants. The defendant put in appearance

and filed written statement and mentioned therein that the agreement dated 25.4.2000 produced by the plaintiff with the suit was fabricated and

forged. He filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) readwith Section 151 CPC seeking leave of the Court for taking on record the report of

hand writing expert dated 3.7.2020 in this regard, but the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the defendant's signatures were not

compared with his signatures on the original agreement, and the same was prepared on the basis of comparison of signatures on the photostat copies

of the documents. Learned counsel further submits that not only the original document can be sent for expert examination, but photostat copies may

also be sent for examination of hand writing expert. However, the learned trial court erred while dismissing the application and hence, the impugned

order 2.11.2020 is liable to be quashed and set-aside. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:

i) Sugandhi Versus P. Rajkumar reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706

ii) Punamchand Jeengar Versus Satyanarayan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 4213/2017; decided on 27.11.2017) passed by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur

iii) Mohd. Rafiq & Ors. Versus Smt. Jaitun & Ors. (SBCWP No. 1327/2017; decided on 25.7.2017) passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at

Principal Seat, Jodhpur

iv) Smt. Parvati & Anr. Versus Shri Ram Dayal Sharma (SBCWP No. 8645/2014; decided on 4.6.2020) passed by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court

v) Kati Maheswara Rao Versus Uppati Lalitha & Ors. reported in 2018 (3) Civil Court Cases 085 (T&A).

Despite service of notice, none has appeared for the respondents to oppose the petition.

Heard. Considered.

In the case of Kati Maheswara Rao (supra), it was held by the Telengana and Andhra Pradesh High Court that not only the original document can be

sent for expert examination, but photographic copies may also be sent for examination of hand writing expert. It was also held that even inspite of

availability of expert evidence, the Court can also compare the signatures under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act and opinion of expert is only a

guiding factor and it is for the Court below to examine the entire evidence on record including the evidence of the hand writing expert and come to a

just conclusion. As such, dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner on this ground by the Court below is erroneous.

In the instant case, when specific objection was raised by the defendant in his written statement that the purported agreement dated 25.4.2000

produced by the plaintiff was fabricated and forged and did not bear the defendant's signatures for which hand writing expert report with regard to

defendant's signatures was produced before the Court below, the application ought to have been allowed, moreso in view of the fact that expert report

was merely a guiding factor and it is for the Court below to examine the entire evidence on record including the evidence of the hand writing expert

and come to a just conclusion.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed; the order dated 2.11.2020 passed by the trial court is quashed and set-aside. Resultantly, the

application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) readwith Section 151 CPC is allowed; leave is granted to the defendant and the hand writing expert report is

taken on record.

Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.