Yasomati Devi vs Kiran Kumari

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in Title Suit No. 435 of 2010 (renumbered as Original Suit No. 729 of 2024) by which the petition to summon the witnesses under Order XVI Rule of the CPC has been rejected.

Petitioners filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for confirmation of possession. Further prayer was made for recovery of possession in the event of dispossession.

The suit land is measuring 7 Kathas 8 Chhataks under R.S. Plot No. 131 Khata No. 132, Village-Tiril, P.S.-Sadar and District-Ranchi.

The application for summoning the following witnesses have been made:

a. District Sub Registrar, Ranchi or any of his competent officer along with T.I Registrar, Book-1, Volume-for the sale deed dated 19.12.1995 being deed no. 434 for the year 1995.

b. Circle Officer Town Anchal Ranchi or any of his competent officer to prove the entire order sheet of Mutation Case No. 4336R27/2007-08 to prove correction slip.

c. Any  competent  officer  of  Central  Forensic  Science  Laboratory, Kolkata for his cross-examination with respect to the report submitted by them vide Report No. CFSL(K)/EE/2011(JHAR)-31 dated 16th June, 2011.

The learned Trial Court rejected petition mainly on ground that the case was at stage of defence evidence and there was delay in filing the said petition which can be permitted only within 15 days from framing of the issues.

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners/ plaintiffs that claim of title is made on the basis of the registered sale deed executed in 1995 by the defendant. After the execution of sale deed, the land was duly mutated in the name of plaintiffs in Mutation Case No. 4336R27/2007-

8 and the plaintiffs as in settled possession of the land.

The necessity to examine the competent officer of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata arose because the defendant has filed the report of the handwriting expert in a Complaint Case No. 47 of 2009 filed on the basis of which PS Sadar, FIR No. 20 of 2009 under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC was registered. It is submitted in this case the sale deed was sent to the handwriting expert for verification of the signature of defendant and it was found that the signature did not tally.

The main contention of the petitioner is that in the said criminal case the handwriting expert has not been examined and the same report has been filed in the present title suit. Therefore, in order to rebut the said evidence of the handwriting expert, examination of the expert is necessary.

Learned counsel on behalf of the defendants defends the impugned order and submits that the report of the handwriting expert was filed along with the written statement in 03.08.2012, whereas the instant petition has been filed on 09.06.2025 which was at the stage of defence.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the both sides, so far as certified copy of the sale deed is concerned, there is no requirement of formal proof in view of the ratio laid down 2009(4)JLJR 271 Dhirendar Bihari Srivastava Vs Smt. Leela Mishra & Ors. Mere filing of a certified copy is a proof of the execution of the sale deed.

Secondly, the order of mutation is a public document and therefore, a certified copy of it issued by competent authority will be sufficient proof of it and Circle Officer need not be summoned to prove the same.

So far as the plea for summoning the witness competent officer of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata is concerned, the law on the point is that handwriting expert per se is a weak piece of evidence and is not substantive evidence unless the expert is subjected to cross-examination under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It is for the party, who relies on the report of the handwriting expert, to get it formally proved by summoning the expert.

In the present case, it is not the petitioners who is relying on the said report of the handwriting expert and therefore there is no occasion for him to summon the said witness.

Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit in the instant, civil miscellaneous petition.

Civil miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.