M/S Bhavesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Amiya Kumar Paul
2025 Latest Caselaw 4991 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

M/S Bhavesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Amiya Kumar Paul on 21 April, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                            2025:JHHC:11851


IN    THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    C.M.P. No. 1106 of 2023
M/s Bhavesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. through its one of the Director,
Suresh Kumar Agarwal, aged about 63 yrs. S/o Ram Raksh Pal Agarwal,
having its registered office at RCC Road, Dubra, P.O., & P.S. Purulia,
Dist. Purulia W.B and its Branch Office at Shastri Nagar, Dhowatand
West, P.O. & P.S. Bankmore, Dist. Dhanbad.         .....   ..... Petitioner
                              Versus
1. Amiya Kumar Paul, S/o Satyanarayan Paul, R/o Purana Bazar, P.O.
Purana Bazar, R. P.S. Bankmore, Dist. Dhanbad.
2. Uday Shankar Paul, S/o Late Nirmal Kumar Paul
3. Bani Brata Paul, S/o Late Nirmal Kumar Paul,
4. Smt. Nanda Laha, W/o Late Sunil Kumar Laha,
5. Smt. Krishna Dey, W/o Joytsna Kumar Dey,
6. Ratna Das, W/o Shri Rabindra Nath Das,
7. Maya Paul, W/o Late Rabindra Nath Paul,
8. Binay Krishan Paul, S/o Late Satya Narayan Paul
For Respondent No. 2 to 8, R/o Purana Bazar, P.O. Purana Bazar, P.S.
Bankmore, Dist. Dhanbad. Present R/o Kanchan Nagar, P.O. & P.S.
Kanchan Nagar, Dist. Burdwan W.B.
                              .... .... ..... Decree Holders/ Respondents
9. M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India, Sector-
2 Kapurthala Complex, P.O. & P.S. Aliganj, Dist. Lucknow (U.P.).
10. The Regional Manager, M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation
Ltd., Sector-IV City Center, P.O. Sector-II, PS. Sector-IV, Dist. Bokaro.
11. M/s Karmyogi Grih Nirman Swalambi Sahakari Samity Ltd. Bhuli,
P.O. Bhuli, P.S. East Basuriya, Dist. Dhanbad.
12. Dhirendra Nath Dutta, S/o late Surendra Nath Dutta,
13. Nimai Chandra Dutta, S/o Late Surendra Nath Dutta,
14. Krishnendu Shekhar Chandra Dutta, S/o Kailash Chandra Dutta,
15. Swarup Kumar Dutta, S/o Kailash Chandra Dutta,
16. Narain Chandra Dutta, Late Anil Chandra Dutta,
17. Jiwan Chandra Dutta, Late Anil Chandra Dutta,
Sl. No. 12 to 17 S/o R/o Village Ranguni Basti, P.O. Bhuli, P.S. East


                             -1-
                                                              2025:JHHC:11851

Basuria, Dist. Dhanbad.
18. Smt. Chanchala Kumari, W/o Sri Jaiprakash Roy,
19. M/s A to Z Properties through its proprietor Smt. Chanchala Kumari,
20. Sri Jaiprkash Roy, S/o Late Ujagar Prasad Roy, Sl. No. 18 to 20 R/o
605, Mangal Kunj Apartment, Hindustan Press Road, Bhelatand, P.O.
Nagnagar, P.S. Barwadda, Dist. Dhanbad.
21. State of Jharkhand.
22. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O,
P.S. & Dist. Dhanbad.
23. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro cum Regional Director, Jharkhand
Industrial Area Development Authority, having its office at Balidih, P.O.
& P.S. Balidih, Dist. Bokaro.
24. M/s Asarfi Hospital Limited through one of its Director Udaai Pratap
Singh, S/o Narayan Prakash Singh, R/o Khatal Road, Dhaiya, Dhaiya,
Damodarpur, P.O. I.S.M., P.S. & Dist. Dhanbad.
                                           ..... .... .... Opposite Parties
                          With
                 C.M.P. No. 986 of 2023
M/s Bhavesh Commotrade (P) Ltd., through its Director Suresh Kumar
Agarwal, aged about 63 yrs. S/o late Rishpal Agarwal, having registered
office at RCC Road, Dubra, District Purulia and Branch Office at Shastri
Nagar, Dhowatand (West), P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Bankmore, Dist.
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.                              .....   ...     Petitioner
                                  Versus
1. Uday Shankar Paul, S/o Late Nirmal Kumar Paul, aged about 67 years
2. Bani Brata Paul, S/o Nirmal Paul, aged about 65 years
3. Smt. Nanda Laha, W/o Sunil Kumar Laha, aged about 62 years
4. Smt. Krishna Dey, W/o Joytsna Kumar Dey, aged about 60 years
5. Ratna Das, W/o Shri Rabindra Nath Das, aged about 56 years
6. Maya Paul, W/o Late Rabindra Nath Paul, aged about 70 years
7. Binay Krishan Paul, S/o Late Satyanarayan Paul, aged about 75 years
8. Amiya Kumar Paul, S/o Late Satyanarayan Paul, aged about 72 years
Sl. No. 1 to 8 are resident of Purana Bazar, Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S.
Bank More, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826001 at present residing at

                                 -2-
                                                             2025:JHHC:11851

Kanchan Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Kanchan Nagar, Dist. Burdwan (W.B.)
                              .... .... ..... Decree Holders/ Respondents
9. M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sector-
2, Kapurthala Complex, P.O. & P.S. Aliganj, Dist. Lucknow (U.P.).
10. The Regional Manager, M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation
Ltd., Sector-IV City Center, P.O. Sector-II, PS. Sector-IV, Bokaro, Dist.
Bokaro, Jharkhand.
11. M/s Karmyogi Grih Nirman Swalambi Sahakari Samity Ltd. Bhuli,
P.O. Bhuli, P.S. East Basuriya, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
12. Dhirendra Nath Dutta, S/o late Surendra Nath Dutta,
13. Nimai Chandra Dutta, S/o Late Surendra Nath Dutta,
14. Krishnendu Shekhar Chandra Dutta, S/o Kailash Chandra Dutta,
15. Swarup Kumar Dutta, S/o Kailash Chandra Dutta,
16. Narain Chandra Dutta, S/o Late Anil Chandra Dutta,
17. Jiwan Chandra Dutta, S/o Late Anil Chandra Dutta,
Sl. No. 12 to 17 are resident of Village Ranguni Basti, P.O. Bhuli, P.S.
East Basuria, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
18. Smt. Chanchala Kumari, W/o Sri Jaiprakash Roy,
19. M/s A to Z Properties through its proprietor Smt. Chanchala Kumari,
20. Sri Jaiprakash Roy, S/o Late Ujagar Prasad Roy,
Sl. No. 18 to 20 R/o 605, Mangal Kunj Apartment, Hindustan Press
Road, Bhelatand, P.O. Nagnagar, P.S. Barwadda, Dist. Dhanbad,
Jharkhand.
21. The State of Jharkhand.
22. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. & Dist.
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
23. The      Deputy   Commissioner,    Bokaro-cum-Regional      Director,
Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. &
Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand.
24. M/s Asarfi Hospital Limited through one of the Director namely
Udai Pratap Singh, S/o Nayan Prakash Singh, Khatal Road, Dhaiya,
Damodarpur, P.O. I.S.M., P.S. & Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
                                          ..... .... .... Opposite Parties



                              -3-
                                                                      2025:JHHC:11851

                               --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

--------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.

[In CMP No.1106/23] Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate [In CMP No.986/23] For the OP Nos.1 to 8 : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate [In both cases] For the OP Nos.9 to 11 : Mr. Rishi Pallav, Advocate [In CMP No.1106/23] For the OP Nos.12 to 17 : Mr. Rajiv Kr. Karan, Advocate [In CMP No.1106/23] For the OP Nos.18 to 20 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate [In CMP No.1106/23] For the OP Nos. 21 & 22 : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III [In both cases] For the OP No.23 : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate [In both cases] For the OP No.24 : Mr. P.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate [In both cases] For the OP Nos. 18 to 20 : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate.

[In CMP No.986 of 2023] For the OP No.23 : Mr. Chandra G.A. Bardhan, Advocate [In both cases]

------

06/ 21.04.2025 All these petitions have been tagged together. However for the sake of brevity separate order is being passed in one CMP being C.M.P. No. 515 of 2023.

2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 to 8, Mr. P.K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.24, Mr. Rishi Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.9 to 11, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 18 to 20, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.21 and 22, Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.23 and Mr. Rajiv Kr. Karan, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.12 to 17.

3. These petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prayer in C.M.P. No. 1106 of 2023 is made for setting aside the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-1st, Dhanbad in Execution Case No.30 of

2025:JHHC:11851

2023, whereby the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the application dated 26.06.2023 preferred by the petitioner u/s 45 of the Evidence Act seeking the learned Court's intervention in the matter of proxy filing of petitions by Mr. Jaiprakash Roy and Chanchala Kumari who have been signing as Maya Paul.

4. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No. 76 of 2006 was instituted by the plaintiff, who are the respondent nos.1 to 8, which has been decreed by the judgment dated 15.12.2011. He submits that for execution of the said decree, Execution Case No.30 of 2023 has been filed by the plaintiff. He further submits that being aggrieved with the decree, opposite party no. 9 to 11 have preferred First Appeal, being F.A. No. 43 of 2012. He submits that the said First Appeal No. 43 of 2012 was dismissed by the High Court by the judgment dated 30.06.2022, against that judgment, the State has moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6781-6782 of 2023 and in that Civil Appeal, the judgment passed in F.A. No. 43 of 2012 dated 30.06.2022 has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.04.2024 and following directions have been issued:

"Learned counsel appearing for the parties agree that though three proceedings were disposed of by the impugned judgement, by setting aside the impugned judgment in so far as the First Appeal No.43 of 2012 is concerned, the same be remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration. Accordingly, we pass the following order: (i) Impugned judgment dated 30.06.2022 in so far as the First Appeal No.43 of 2012 is concerned, is hereby set aside. First Appeal No.43 of 2012 is restored to the file of the High Court;

(ii) The interim applications which were disposed of in view of the disposal of the said appeal also stand restored.

(iii) The interim relief, if any, operative in First Appeal No.43 of 2012 till the date of impugned judgment also stands restored with liberty to the parties to make fresh application(s) for grant of interim relief, if any;

(iv) As the judgment on the First Appeal has been set aside, the Review Petition will not survive and the order passed on the Review Petition is also set aside; (v) All contentions in the restored appeal are kept open and which can be agitated before the High Court; (vi) We direct that the restored appeal shall

2025:JHHC:11851

be listed before the Roster Bench of Jharkhand High Court on 08.07.2024 for fixing a schedule of hearing.

The parties who are represented today, shall be bound to appear before the High Court on that date and they will not be served with a fresh notice of the date fixed;

(vii) A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Jharkhand High Court who will ensure that the restored appeal alongwith application(s), if any, are listed on 08.07.2024.

(viii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the rights and contentions of the parties. The parties are free to raise it in accordance with law before the High Court; and.

(ix) The appeals are disposed of on above terms. No costs."

5. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, leaned counsel further submits that the petitioner herein has also moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11065 of 2024. He submits that by the same order, the said SLP was also tagged and disposed of. In this background, he submits that the petition was filed before learned court for verifying the signature, which has been rejected by the executing court and in view of that the said order may kindly be set aside and proper direction may kindly be issued for verification of signature of Maya Paul. He further submits that in the First Appeal, petitioner herein has also been made party and the said Appeal is pending now.

6. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 1 to 8 submits that the opposite party nos.1 to 8 were the plaintiff in the title suit, which has been decreed in their favour, pursuant to that the said execution case has been filed. He submits that the learned court has examined Maya Paul, wherein she has stated that her signature are there. In view of that, the learned court has passed the said order. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 14.08.2023.

7. Mr. P.K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.24 submits that the said land has been allotted by the Government to construct the hospital, pursuant to that the hospital has been erected and which is running now. He submits that initially the Asarfi was party in the First Appeal, however, after

2025:JHHC:11851

remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a coordinate Bench of this Court has directed to delete the name of State and the Asarfi in F.A. No. 43 of 2012.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 9 to 11 and Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 18 to 20 adopted the argument of Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, leaned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos. 1 to 8.

9. In view of the above submission of learned counsel for the parties, it is an admitted position that Title Suit No. 76 of 2006 was decided in favour of the plaintiff, who are opposite party nos.1 to 8 herein, and for execution of that decree, execution case has been filed. In the meantime, the High Court has decided F.A. No.43 of 2012 by the judgment dated 30.06.2022 and the said the judgment of the High Court was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6781-6782 of 2023 by the State and Asarfi, which has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and set aside the order dated 30.06.2022 and directions (quoted hereinabove) have been issued, pursuant to that, the First Appeal is restored to the file of the High Court, as such against the decree, the first appeal is pending.

10. In light of direction No. 4(iv), the review petition also not surviving and in view that the review petition order has been set aside and in the First Appeal, all contentions are kept to be open to be agitated by the parties in First Appeal. It has been pointed out by the petitioner that he has been made respondent in F.A. No. 43 of 2012. It is well known that the First Appeal is continuation of trial court proceeding and all grounds can be contended before the First Appeal. In the present petition, the impugned order is under challenge, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for comparing the signature of one Maya Paul has been rejected by the learned court.

11. In the case of "Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) Through Legal Representatives And Another" reported in (2019) 14 SCC 220, it has been held that the

2025:JHHC:11851

court must be cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature. It may not be safe to solely rely upon such evidence, and court may seek independent and reliable corroboration in the facts of a given case, as a general rule of prudence. Generally, mere expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded as conclusive proof of it.

12. So far the case in hand is concerned, Maya Paul herself has appeared before the learned Court and she has stated that she has signed all the documents. In view of that, the learned Court has accepted her contention and the said petition has been rejected. The evidence of handwriting expert can rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence that has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case in paragraph no.11 of the said judgment and caution has been further discussed in para-12 of the said judgment and the both paras speak as under:

"11. We may particularly refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee, where it was observed that the evidence of a handwriting expert can rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence. In the said case, the Court chose to disregard the testimony of the handwriting expert as to the disputed signature of the testator of a Will, finding such evidence to be inconclusive. The Court instead relied on the clear testimony of the two attesting witnesses as well as the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.

12. On the other hand, in Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court emphasised that reliance on expert testimony cannot be precluded merely because it is not corroborated by independent evidence, though the Court must still approach such evidence with caution and determine its creditworthiness after considering all other relevant evidence. After examining the decisions referred to supra, the Court was of the opinion that these decisions merely laid down a rule of caution, and there is no legal rule that mandates corroboration of the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. At the same time, the Court noted that Section 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter "the Evidence Act") expressly makes opinion evidence open to challenge on facts. In Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi), without referring to Section 46 of the Evidence Act, this Court reiterated the observations in Murari Lal and stressed that the Court must exercise due care and caution while determining the creditworthiness of expert evidence."

13. Further what has been argued to decide the said order,

2025:JHHC:11851

which is the subject matter, that can also be agitated in the appeal. In light of that the Court finds that so far the impugned order in the present CMP is concerned, there is no illegally with the same. As such C.M.P. No. 1106 of 2023 is dismissed.

14. So far C.M.P. No.986 of 2023 is concerned, Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel on instruction submits that since this petition is also arising out of the same Title Suit No. 76 of 2006 and the same execution case and in view of the fact that the First Appeal, being F.A. No. 43 of 2012 is pending and in which the petitioner is also a party. As such, he is not pressing this petition at this stage and he will await the outcome of the First Appeal being F.A. No. 43 of 2012.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the respective opposite parties have got no objection.

16. In view of their such submissions, C.M.P. No. 986 of 2023 is dismissed as not pressed with the liberty to the petitioner to take all the grounds in the First Appeal pending before the High Court.

17. Pending petitions, if any, also dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) RKM/-

A.F.R.