Jharkhand High Court

Harcharan Singh vs Smt. Kaljindeer Kaur on 21 July, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                     [2025:JHHC:19934]



       IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           C.M.P. No. 352 of 2024
       1. Harcharan Singh, aged about 56 years, son of late
       Surendra Singh,
       2. Smt. Karamjeet Kaur, aged about 57 years widow
       of late Sukhbir Singh
       3. Nav Tej Singh, aged about.31 years, son of late
       Sukhbir Singh
            All are residents of Holding No. 38, Hem
       Singh Bagan, New Kalimati Road, (Near Over
       Bridge), Gurudwara Nagar, Ρ.Ο. Sakchi, P.S.
       Golmuri,     Town       Jamshedpur,    District-East
       Singhbhum.
                                                           .....   ...     Petitioners
                                Versus
       Smt. Kaljindeer Kaur, wife of Sri Didar Singh and
       daughter of late Surendra Singh, resident of 1/2, C-
       Block, Awas Shanti, Post Office Road, Dimna
       Road, P.O. and P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur,
       District-East Singhbhum.
                                                   .....   ...       Opposite Party
                               --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate. For the sole O.P. : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate.

------

06/ 21.07.2025 Heard Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Mr. Jitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the sole

opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside

the order dated 05.12.2023, passed in Title (P) Suit No. 95 of 2012 by

the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div)-I, Jamshedpur, whereby the petition

dated 18.05.2023 filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order-VIII

[2025:JHHC:19934]

Rule-1A read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the

learned court.

3. Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that Title (Partition) Suit no. 95 of 2012 was filed by

the opposite party-plaintiff against the petitioners/defendants for a

preliminary decree for partition of the entire Schedule-A suit properties,

according to the share of the parties, for appointment of a survey

knowing pleader commissioner or any other competent person as

commissioner for effecting partition of the schedule-A suit properties in

terms of the preliminary decree and for final decree for partition. He

submits that after institution of the suit, the petitioners/defendants

pursuant to summons have appeared before the learned court and filed

their respective written statements on 21.02.2024.

4. He further submits that during the pendency of the said suit,

the petitioners filed petition under Order VIII, Rule 1-A read with

Section 151 C.P.C. on 18.05.2023 stating there in that the Deed of

Relinquishment dated 16.05.2009, executed by the Plaintiff, Kaljinder

Kaur, as well as the affidavit dated 12/06/2009, and affidavit dated

18/05/2009, sworn by the plaintiff Kaljinder Kaur, have been filed and

in course of cross-examination of the plaintiff Kaljinder Kaur, she has

denied her signature over the Deed of Relinquishment dated

16.05.2009, as well as affidavit dated 12.06.2009, and affidavit dated

18.05.2009 and in view of that the defendants got the signature of the

plaintiff, Kaljinder Kaur, over the Deed of Relinquishment dated

16.05.2009 as well as affidavit dated 12.06.2009 and affidavit dated

18.05.2009, examined by the Document Expert, Shri Rajani Kanta Das,

Ex-Director of Questioned Documents Examination Bureau, C.I.D,

Kolkata, West Bengal, which has been rejected by the learned court. He

[2025:JHHC:19934]

submits that the learned court has not considered the spirit of

Order-VIII Rule-1A of the CPC in right perspective and has wrongly

rejected the said petition. On these grounds, he submits that the

impugned order may kindly be set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Jitesh Kumar, learned counsel

appearing for the sole O.P. has opposed the prayer and submits that the

proper course has not been adopted by the petitioners herein to file such

petition. He submits that it is for the court to decide as to whether any

expert opinion on the signature is required or not for that the petitioners

were required to file a petition before the learned court, however,

without following that procedure, suo motu, an expert opinion has been

obtained by the petitioners and that has been tried to bring on record.

On these grounds, he submits that the learned court has rightly passed

the order and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on

record including the impugned order and finds that admittedly, the

partition suit has been instituted by the opposite party-plaintiff for

partition of the suit property, as noted hereinabove. After notice the

petitioners herein have appeared before the learned court and file their

respective written statements and during the pendency of the said suit,

one petition under Order-VIII Rule-1A CPC was filed and prayer was

made to bring on record the signature of the plaintiff on record, which

has been examined on the request made by the petitioners by a retired

person that too in absence of leave from the court. In this regard,

reference may be made to the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court

in the case of Byalla Devadas versus Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao

[2025:JHHC:19934]

reported in 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 53 wherein at paragraph No.9, it has

been held as under :-

"9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the orders passed by a learned Judge in P. Padmanabhaiah v.

G.Srinivasa Rao AIR 2016 AP 118 (FB) the case of Dara Srinivasa Rao‟s case (referred (2) supra). In P.Padmanabhaiah‟s case (referred (4) supra), the defendant in O.S.No.324 of 2010 on the file of Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the vakalat and written statement containing his signatures along with the promissory note (Ex.A.1) for handwriting expert for comparison of his signatures on the vakalat and written statement with the signatures said to be of him on 4 AIR 2016 AP 118 (FB) NJS, J Crp_67_ 2022 Ex.A.1 and furnish a report with opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed signatures on the said exhibits. The said application was allowed. The learned Judge of this Court while interfering with the orders of the Trial Court had extensively dealt with the matters with reference to comparison of signatures on vakalat and written statement with the disputed documents, inter alia, held as follows:-

"In the well-considered view of this Court, the defendants signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of

[2025:JHHC:19934]

comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be ruled out prima facie. The view point being projected by the plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open court is also having considerable force and merit. Unless the defendant makes available to the Court below any documents, with his signatures, of authentic and reliable nature more or less of a contemporaneous period, and unless such documents are in turn made available to the expert along with the suit promissory note, the expert will not be in a position to furnish an assured opinion, in the well considered view of this Court. .........There is no point in sending to an expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties. When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on the material record before the trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the defendant

[2025:JHHC:19934]

in open Court and send the said signatures and also his vakalat and written statement to an expert for obtaining his opinion after comparison of the signatures thereon with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, as any such opinion obtained from a handwriting expert on such material is not going to be of any help to the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis more particularly in the light of the admitted legal position that expert's opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence."

7. In view of the above unless the defendants makes available

to the court any documents with his signatures of authentic and reliable

nature more or less of a contemporaneous period, and unless such

documents are in turn made available to the expert along with the suit

promissory note, the expert will not be in a position to furnish an

assured opinion. Here, the suo motu an opinion from a retired person

has been taken by the petitioners on the signature of the opposite party-

plaintiff.

8. Section 45 of the Evidence Act corresponding to Section 39

of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 enable the Court to obtain

the opinion of an expert on various aspects, including the one relating

to the comparison of disputed signatures. Further an expert would be in