Allahabad High Court
Nizamuddin vs Arun Kumar Gupta on 21 November, 2024
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:181897
Court No. - 4
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2205 of 2024
Petitioner :- Nizamuddin
Respondent :- Arun Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Sarwar Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Gupta,Sarita Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Mohd. Sarwar Khan, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Shri A.K.Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Manish Gupta, learned counsel appearing for landlord respondent.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the order passed by the Trial Judge affirmed in revision by the revisional court and so also has questioned the order passed in revision.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that in a suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent instituted by the respondent landlord wayback in the year 2012 being SCC Suit No. 22 of 2012, some counterfoils of counterfoil book of the receipts were filed in the year 2013 in which upon three counterfoils objections were raised qua signatures of petitioner thereupon. It is after a gap of more than a decade while the case was at final stage, that the petitioner moved miscellaneous application for getting handwriting expert opinion for disputed counterfoils. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that this is nothing but a tactics to delay the proceedings. As it was entire counterfoils book that was brought on record.
4. Affirming the judgment passed by the Trial Judge, the court sitting in revision further elaborated the issue by holding that if only three receipts were disputed whereas the entire counterfoil book containing several receipts was not disputed in its entirety, it would hardly have any bearing upon other receipts having admitted signatures of petitioner.
5. The submission advanced by learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that once receipts are disputed for questioning signatures of the petitioner thereupon, then these signatures claimed to be forged, required expert opinion.
6. Per contra, Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate argued that it would have been a different case, had petitioner disputed entire counterfoil book. Disputing three receipts only in a bunch of receipts of the counterfoil book, the petitioner cannot claim to have set up such a specific case that may warrant expert opinion especially when the other counterfoil receipt have been admittedly bearing his signatures.
7. Upon a pointed query being made, learned counsel for petitioner Shri Mohd. Sarwar Khan, could not dispute the findings returned by the court sitting in revision that the counterfoil book in its entirety was not been disputed. Mr. Khan, also could not offer any explanation for the delay of more than a decade in moving the such a miscellaneous application and that too at the fag end of the conclusion of proceedings as proceedings were at the final stage of hearing.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any manifest error in the order passed either by the Trial Judge or the court sitting in revision.
9. Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
10. However, dismissal of this petition will not come in the way of petitioner disputing a particular counterfoil when it comes for adjudication before the Trial Judge and any observations made earlier by the Trial Judge or court sitting in revision or by this Court hereinabove shall be taken to be limited to the disposal of miscellaneous application and will not have any bearing upon the merit of the case.
Order Date :- 21.11.2024
Nadeem
