Gujarat High Court
Tejrav Kishan Inamdar vs Shardadevi Sabhajit Singh on 29 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18461 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
TEJRAV KISHAN INAMDAR
Versus
SHARDADEVI SABHAJIT SINGH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT N PATEL(2749) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR N R DESAI(6504) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.N.R.Desai waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. Heard Learned advocate Mr. Amit N. Patel for the petitioner and Learned advocate Mr. N.R. Desai for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
3. The present writ application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:- Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined "(a) Admit and allow this petition,
(b) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside impugned order dated 09/12/2021 passed by the Ld. 13th Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, Surat, below Exh. 54 in Regular Civil Suit no. 597 of 2016 pending before the Ld. 13th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Surat and further be please to allow the application filed vide Exh. 54 in Regular Civil Suit no. 597 of 2016 pending before the Ld. 13th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Surat,
(c) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay implementation, execution of the impugned order dated 09/12/2021passed by the Ld. 13th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Surat, below Exh. 54 in Regular Civil Suit no. 597 of 2016,
(d) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Regular Civil Suit no. 597of 2016 pending before the Ld. 13th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Surat.
(e) To grant such other and further relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.
(f) To award cost of this petition."
4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 4.1. The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff, whereas the respondents herein are the original defendants of Regular Civil Suit No.597 of 2016, pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Surat. The suit was filed seeking a declaration and permanent injunction.
4.2. It is specific case of the plaintiff that the sale agreement dated 05.06.2002, i.e., the possession receipt sought to be relied upon by the defendants claiming ownership and Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined possession of the suit property, is got-up one and, in fact, the plaintiff has never signed such a possession receipt. In support of his claim, the plaintiff has filed private handwriting expert's opinion, which was discarded by the Trial Court while adjudicating the injunction application filed below Exh. 5 in the suit, solely on the ground that it was issued by private handwriting expert and cannot be believed. 4.3. So, the plaintiff appears to have filed the impugned application below Exh. 54, whereby sought a prayer that the original possession receipt produced below Exh. 47 be sent to any government Handwriting Expert, whereby, the signature of the plaintiff can be ascertained/verified. 4.4. The defendants appear to have objected to the impugned application, contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff cannot fall back on the evidence produced by the defendants and, as such, is required to lead his own evidence to prove his case.
5. After hearing the parties concerned, the Trial Court, vide Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined its impugned order dated 09.12.2021, rejected the impugned application, against which the present writ application came to be filed by the original plaintiff.
6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER / PLAINTIFF 6.1. Learned advocate Mr. Patel would submit that the Trial Court has committed a serious error of law and so also, jurisdictional error by not sending the possession receipt to Government Handwriting Expert as prayed for in the impugned application.
6.2. Learned advocate Mr. Patel would further submit that no reasons were assigned by the Trial Court while rejecting the impugned application, inasmuch as it has only been observed that the plaintiff is required to prove his case by leading his own evidence and cannot fall back upon the weakness of the defendants.
6.3. Learned advocate Mr. Patel would further submit that when the document in question is disputed and the relief of declaration questioning such disputed document is the main Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined controversy involved in the suit, the prayer made in the impugned application requires to be accepted by the Trial Court.
6.4. Learned advocate Mr. Patel would further submit that, as such, the plaintiff had already secured private handwriting expert report, who confirmed that the signature on the possession receipt is not that of the plaintiff, but the same was not believed by the Trial Court, it being a private one, and then the need arose to file the impugned application. 6.5. Learned advocate Mr. Patel would further submit that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if such an application could have been allowed by the Trial Court, inasmuch as by getting report from Government Handwriting Expert, an opportunity will be available to both sides to prove their respective cases on their own merits. 6.6. To buttress his argument, learned advocate Mr. Patel would rely upon the following decisions:-
(i) Deepakkumar Jamnadas Prajapati Versus Binaben Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined Shankarbhai Desai reported in 2025 GUJ HC 18745.
6.7. Making the above submissions, Learned advocate Mr. Patel would request this Court to allow the present writ application.
7. SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 7.1. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Desai would submit that, as such, there is no gross error of law committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the impugned application, and this Court should not exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order. 7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Desai would further submit that the impugned possession receipt was submitted by the defendants, which was accepted at Exh. 47 in the suit, and as such, the plaintiff cannot fall back upon such evidence to prove his case. It is submitted that the plaintiff is required to lead appropriate evidence to prove his case to obtain the relief as prayed for in the suit.
7.3. Learned advocate Mr. Desai would further submit that Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined the Trial Court has correctly observed in the impugned order that the plaintiff cannot fall back upon the weakness of the defendants and the evidence led by them. It is further submitted that the burden is always upon the plaintiff to prove the allegations made in the plaint and, thereby, there is no requirement to send the possession receipt to any Government Handwriting Expert to prove the signature of the plaintiff. 7.4. Making the above submissions, Learned advocate Mr. Desai would request this Court to reject the present writ application.
8. No other and further submissions were made.
9. POINT FOR DETERMINATION 9.1. The short controversy involved is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is any gross error of law and/or any jurisdictional error committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the impugned application filed below Exh. 54 by the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 597 of 2016.
10. ANALYSIS Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined
11. The facts, hereinabove, are not in dispute. It remains undisputed that the plaintiff has already disputed the possession receipt, inasmuch as the signature of the plaintiff affixed on such possession receipt from inception, and as such, the suit came to be filed seeking declaration to that effect. The plaintiff has also secured private handwriting expert's opinion, which appears to be in his favour, but the same was not accepted by the Trial Court while adjudicating the injunction application filed below Exh. 5 in the suit, only on the ground that it is a private opinion.
12. When such is the view taken by the Trial Court at the interlocutory stage of the suit, it would be incumbent upon the plaintiff to request the Trial Court to send the possession receipt to Government Handwriting Expert, whereby it can be certified/opined by such Government Handwriting Expert as to whether the signature affixed on the disputed possession receipt is that of the plaintiff or not.
13. Prima facie, after going through the impugned order, it appears that there is no reason assigned by the Trial Court Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined while rejecting the impugned application. As such, it is a non- speaking order and requires to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone.
14. Nonetheless, this Court would not like to remand the matter back to the Trial Court for re-hearing on the impugned application, as the suit is of the year 2016 and it appears that it has reached the stage of recording the evidence of the plaintiff.
15. So, having heard Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it would be appropriate for this Court to examine the impugned application itself. Having so observed hereinabove, the dispute in the suit is regarding the possession receipt/sale agreement dated 05.06.2002, alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. When the plaintiff has disputed the signature on the aforesaid document since inception, which is already produced at Exh. 47 in the suit, and more particularly, the Trial Court has not accepted the opinion of the private Handwriting Expert secured by the plaintiff, it could not have rejected the impugned application. Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined On one hand, the Trial Court has observed that the plaintiff will have to prove his case on its own merits by leading appropriate evidence, and on the other hand, the evidence which has been brought by the plaintiff, i.e., the opinion of the private Handwriting Expert, is not accepted.
16. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to and rely upon the decision in the case of Deepakkumar (supra), wherein this Court after referring several decisions held thus:-
[8] Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the defendant has claimed that the signature on the agreement to sell as well as the possession receipt is not of her mother and has also disputed her signature, it was incumbent upon the trial court to accept the impugned application filed by the plaintiff. The trial court could have sent both these documents Exhibits 28 and 29 for the opinion of a government handwriting expert. To bring the truth on record, such an exercise was required to be undertaken by the trial court, which was not done. 8.1 According to me, the trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in it and committed a gross error of law by not allowing the impugned application of the plaintiff. 8.2 At this stage, it is apt to refer and rely upon the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court on issue germane in the present writ application.
(1) In case of Rama Avatar Soni (supra), the Honourabel Apex Court has observed as under;
"8. .If the scientific investigation of the document in question facilitates the ascertaining of truth, in the interest of justice, naturally it has to be ordered. Having regard to the issue raised in the suit, the District Judge was right in allowing the application to send the Will in question dated 12.03.1989 to hand-writing expert."Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined (2) Vide order dated 23.06.2022 in SCA No.10611 of 2022, the Co ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under;
"16. In the present case, if at all Government hand writing expert wants inspection of the original documents and requires any other material for examining for the purpose of opinion, he may be summoned to the Court and permitted the same and thereafter, he may be asked to render his opinion in case of need, subsequently he can be examined before the Court. Another course of action would be to send those original documents which are disputed along with necessary other material that may be asked for by the expert for the purpose of opinion. However, it is for the Court to determine what course of action is to be adopted.
17. Considering the aforesaid decisions referred to and relied on by the learned advocate for the respondent No.1- plaintiff and a decision rendered in the case of Rama Avatar Soni V/s. Mahanta Laxmidhar Das and others, 2019 11 SCC 415 more particularly para-7 thereof wherein the Supreme Court ruled that "If the scientific investigation of the document in question facilitates ascertaining of truth, in the interest of justice, naturally it has to be ordered". Thus, whenever there is a quest for truth with a view to see that truth may surface on record any course of action required, though within the frameworks of law, has to be adopted.
18. Therefore, in my opinion, the documents as Exh.104, 105 and 106 being Banachiththi and vouchers / money receipts, signatures over the same is disputed by the petitioners defendants since the day of filing the written statement, while cross examining the plaintiff and his witnesses, the genuineness of the same is challenged. The power under Rule 10A of Order XXVI of the 'Code' is required to be exercised either sending those documents to the Government hand writing expert at 'FSL', Ahmedabad or that expert may be requested to have the inspection from the original documents before the Court and any other material required may be provided to him by keeping all the parties present there and there for examination of the same for the purpose of opinion over the disputed signature of the said Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined documents. Before the visit of 'FSL' officer, all the necessary details required by him may be ascertained within a very short span and be kept ready by the parties that may be directed by the Court, that too, at the cost of the petitioners defendants. If trial Court feels that sending of original documents to the 'FSL' expert may further delay the proceedings, he may be requested to have the inspection of the original before the Court and any other documents required from anyone be intimated to the Court by expert deputed by 'FSL' on a given date and all the expenses for the said exercise and the examination shall be borne by the petitioners defendants."
(3) In case of Sri Achyut (supra), the Karnataka High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S Abdul Nazeer (his lordship then was) held as under:
"8. Order 26 Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure provides appointment of a Commission for scientific investigation. It states that where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interest of justice so to do, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into such question and report thereon to the Court.
9. In VENKATACHALA IYENGAR'S CASE (SUPRA), the Apex Court has held that under Section 67 of the Evidence Act, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant.
10. This Court in CHIKKANA'S CASE (SUPRA) has held that discretionary powers have been given to the Court under Order 26 Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure to issue commission directing the Commissioner to enquire into such question and report thereon to the Court. It is further held that the discretionary power has been given to be Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined exercised if the conditions are shown to exist namely the case involves a question which requires scientific investigation and the scientific investigation if cannot be conducted in presence of the Court and in the interest of justice and for due and proper decision of the Court if it is necessary to issue the Commission, the Commission has to be issued. It has been further held thus:
"11. In the present case, the dispute is about the genuineness of the signature of the testator on the Will on the basis of which the defendant claims title. The question of signatures as to whether those signatures are of the testator and if admitted signatures have been produced, whether the signature in dispute is of the same person whose signatures are contained on any admitted document. This question has to be scientifically analyzed, examined and considered and then handwriting expert has to give his opinion after scientifically testing the same. It requires a specialised skill and scientific knowledge to give. opinion on that subject. So such a question can definitely be said to involve scientific investigation.""
8.4 It is also profitable to refer and rely upon decision of Madras High Court in a case of S. Chinnathai vs. K.C. Chinnadura (authored by Hon ble Mr. Justice M. M. Sundresh his lordship then was),2009 SCCOnlineMad 1166 wherein it has been held as under, "18. However, on a consideration of the above said legal position, the following principles emerge for consideration:
1. The civil Court is having jurisdiction to send the document to the Forensic Expert for comparing the signatures between the disputed documents with the admitted documents by appointing a Commissioner and get a report.
2. When the civil Court is exercising its power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the civil Court will have to exercise its power under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code instead of invoking Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.
3. The Advocate Commissioner, being an officer of the Court can be asked to take the original document.Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined
4. When the Advocate Commissioner takes the original document, then a certified copy of the same will have to be kept under the custody of the Court.
5. The civil Court cannot direct the disputed document to be compared with the vakalat or written statement of a party.
6. When the civil Court comes to the conclusion that the power under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code should be invoked, then the civil Court shall invoke the same even without an application from the parties concerned in the interest of justice and in order to solve the dispute between the parties.
7. When a document is sent to an expert it should be sent only to the Government Department Expert and not to a private Expert. While sending a document to an expert, the original of the same has to be sent since it is not possible to compare the xerox copies with the other admitted documents.
8. The civil Court shall not dismiss an application seeking for the examination of the document by an expert on the ground of wrong quoting of provision of law and in such a case, the Court shall exercise under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code.
9. The civil Court shall exercise under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code even when a prayer is sought for a direction to summon the expert to the Court for the purpose of examining the document.
10. An application filed under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code will have to be filed at the earliest opportunity in the normal circumstances.
11. However, an application under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be dismissed merely on the question of delay alone, unless the same is willful and deliberate."
(emphasis supplied) 8.5 Thus, in view of the aforesaid clear pronouncements of law, the impugned application could have been allowed by trial Court to bring the truth on record, thereby it can resolve the controversy arising in the suit.
[9] It is also well-settled legal position that the rule of procedure is a handmaid of justice, and a hyper-technical approach requires to be avoided by the Trial Court.
Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined 9.1 It is expected that the principles of natural justice be observed while deciding any request made by a party, ensuring that no serious prejudice is caused to any party when such a prayer made by the applicant is accepted.
9.2 It is profitable to refer and rely upon decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Sugandhi (supra), it was held as under:
"[9] It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute .."
As well as similarly in a case of Rani Kusum (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"[12] The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to act ex debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable.- justice is the goal of jurisprudence - processual, as much as substantive. (See Sushi/ Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, 1975 1 SCC 774).
[13] No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the Court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. (See Blyth v. Blyth, 1966 1 AllER 524 (HL). A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined followed. (See Shreenath and Anr. v. Rajesh and Ors., 1998 AIR(SC) 1827) [14] Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice."
9.3 It is also well settled law that High Court should sparingly exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority [Waryam Singh v/s Amarnath, 1954 AIR(SC) 215].Having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion and having found that trial Court has committed procedural irregularity which requires to be corrected by this Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India thereby, an interference requires in the impugned order."
(emphasis supplied)
17. In light of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances and if we apply the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the facts of the present case, the impugned application is required to be allowed and the order passed by the Trail Court requires to be interfered with by this Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
18. CONCLUSION
19. In light of the aforesaid observations, the Trial Court has committed a serious error of law and so also, materially erred in not exercising its jurisdiction so vested in it while rejecting Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined the impugned application.
20. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 passed by 13th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, below Exh. 54 in Regular Civil Suit no. 597 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the impugned application filed below Exh.54 is hereby allowed.
21. It is hereby ordered that the Trial Court shall send the original possession receipt in question, produced at Exh. 47 in the suit, to the Government Handwriting Expert, at Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Surat or Gandhinagar along with admitted documents containing the signature of plaintiff. If, defendants do not dispute and admit the signature of plaintiff on his Vakalatnama, the copy of plaint as well as copy of affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of plaintiff (if any) or any other undisputed and admitted document in existence prior to filing of suit can be send along with disputed documents (Exh.47) to said expert for comparison of signature of plaintiff thereon.
Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined
22. It is further observed that in a case, any specific requirement will be raised by Government Handwriting Expert to submit his report, whereby, to submit specimen signature of plaintiff etc., plaintiff will have to meet with such requirement and in that eventuality, the Trial Court may pass appropriate order in case of necessity.
23. Before sending such documents in original, the certified copy of such documents including disputed document at Exh.47, be retained on the record of the suit by the Trial Court.
24. The Government Handwriting Expert should be advised to compare signature of plaintiff on disputed documents i.e., Possession receipt below Exh.47, vis-a-vis plaintiff's signature on undisputed documents.
25. The necessary steps be undertaken by Trial Court for implementing the order of this Court. In such circumstances, the entire expense of obtaining of such Government Handwriting Expert report and, if so required, to call such Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18461/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined expert of FSL will be solely borne by plaintiff.
26. It is further made clear that once, such Government Handwriting Expert report be made available to the Trial Court, its copy be given to each party and then after, parties to the suit can prove it in accordance with law. As such, all rights and contentions of respective parties are kept open in all respect.
27. In view of the aforesaid observations, direction and conclusion, the present writ application is hereby partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) MOHD MONIS Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:40:36 IST 2025