Anand Upadhyay And Another vs Sushil Kumar Gupta And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 8616 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 28 of 2023
 

 
Revisionist :- Anand Upadhyay And Another
 
Opposite Party :- Sushil Kumar Gupta And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Aqueel Khan,Chandra Bhan Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists.

Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar has passed order dated 24.11.2022 in SCC Suit No. 12 of 2017 to provide specimen signature, which was challenged before this Court by filing S.C.C. Revision No. 2 of 2023 (Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Anand Upadhyay and 2 others). This Court vide order dated 12.01.2023 has quashed the order dated 24.11.2022 with observation that there is no statutory provision for Small Causes Court to issue a direction for providing specimen. He next submitted that pursuant to order of this Court, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar has rejected the order dated 24.11.2022 and also observed that earlier order dated 30.08.2022 would have no effect. He next submitted that order dated 30.08.2022 is having two parts. One is having direction for obtaining hand writing expert and second is pertaining to provide specimen signature of opposite party no. 1. He further submitted that in case order dated 30.08.2022 has lost its effect, land lord would lose his right to obtain report of hand writing expert on the basis of signature available on record. Therefore, nullifying the order dated 30.08.2022 is bad in law.

I have considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the revisionists and also perused the judgment of this Court dated 12.01.2023.

While allowing the S.C.C. Revision No. 2 of 2023, Court has observed as follows;

"There is no statutory provision permitting any court including the Small Causes Court to issue a direction as incorporated in the order dated 24.11.2022. The court may compare the signatures, if necessary with the admitted signatures of the parties on any document filed before the court in accordance with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."

From perusal of same, it is clear that Court is only saying that a new specimen signature cannot be taken as there is no specific provision, but so far as signature available on record, Court may compare the signatures and this also include obtaining of hand writing expert report by the Court, if required on the basis of specimen signature available on record. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in case, Court thinks it proper may obtain hand writing expert based upon the signature of the parties available on record without asking for providing fresh specimen signature.

With the aforesaid observation, revision is disposed of.

At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that they may be granted liberty to file application for obtaining hand writing expert.

Needless to say that for filing of any application, no liberty is required from the Court and in case any application is filed, it is incumbent upon the Court to decide the same in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 23.3.2023

Arvind