High CourtsSingle Bench

Syeed Irfan Hassan vs Rajesh Kumar and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 12 May 2014 · Citation: (2014) 05 MP CK 0074

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.S. Jha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 45
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
W.P. No. 2786/2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 392 words

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

2.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 31.1.2014, passed in Civil Suit No. 79-A/12 by the First Civil Judge Class-I, Khandwa, District East Nimar, by which the petitioner''s application u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, for calling the report of the handwriting expert, has been rejected.

3.

The application was filed by the petitioner contending that the person who has signed the sale deed, Govind Ram and the witness P.W-4 Govind Ram who has appeared before the Court are different and in such circumstances the report of the handwriting expert be called for.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioner has an alternative to produce the voter identity card and other documents to identify the person who had appeared as P.W-4, however for the purpose of verifying as to whether the signature on the document in question, Exhibit P-1, is that of P.W-4 Govind Ram or not, the handwriting expert should have been called apparently when there is discrepancy in the signatures.

5.

The prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order wherein the court below has clearly stated that the petitioner has an alternative of filing documents to establish that P.W-4 is not the same person who had signed the sale deed.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that while the alternatives, as stated by the court below, are available to the petitioner, however looking to the discrepancy and the apparent differences in the signature on the documents that have been produced before this Court, it would be in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the case that the report of the handwriting expert be called for.

7.

In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.1.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 79-A/12 by the First Civil Judge Class-I, Khandwa, District East Nimar is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner stands allowed. Further steps in accordance with law be taken by the court below.

8.

With the aforesaid direction the petition, filed by the petitioner stands allowed.

9.

C.C. as per rules.