Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kewal Ram Sahu & Ors vs Kandhilal Kurmi & Ors on 4 July, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 4th OF JULY, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 2265 of 2004
Between:-
1. KEWAL RAM SAHU, S/O BALARAM SAHU, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, VILLAGE AND POST
CHICHGAON, TEHSIL NAINPUR, DISTT.
MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KANDHILAL SAHU S/O BALARAM SAHU , AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, VILLAGE AND POST
CHICHGAON, TEHSIL NAINPUR, DISTT.
MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PUNARAM SAHU S/O BALARAM SAHU , AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, VILLAGE CHICHGAON,
TEHSIL NAINPUR, DISTT. MANDLA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. REWARAM SAHU S/O BALARAM SAHU , AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, VILLAGE AND POST
CHICHGAON, TEHSIL NAINPUR, DISTT.
MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI UMESH TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KANDHILAL KURMI, S/O CHETRAM KURMI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, CULTIVATOR, R/O
VILLAGE AND POST CHICHGAON, TEHSIL
NAINPUR, DISTT. MANDLA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SUNDERLAL S/O CHETRAM KURMI, AGED
ABOUT 49 YEARS, CULTIVATOR, R/O VILLAGE
AND POST CHICHGAON, TEHSIL NAINPUR,
DISTT. MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
3. SMT. DHANNABAI W/O DILAN PRASAD SAHU,
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, VILLAGE SARRI,
Date: 2022.07.07 17:01:53 IST
TEHSIL NAINPUR, DISTT. MANDLA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2
4. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR, MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS )
This appeal coming on for hearing on admission, this day, th e court
passed the following:
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Civil
Procedure Code on behalf of defendants No.2 to 5 being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 7th July, 2004 passed by learned District Judge,
Mandla in Civil Appeal No.23A/2003 setting aside the judgment and decree
dated 27/01/2003 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Mandla in RCS No.37A/2002
thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed by trial Court and remanding
the matter to the trial Court to permit the plaintiff to adduce evidence as
application filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was
accepted by learned District Judge.
Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
impugned judgment is arbitrary and illegal. It has been passed by oblivious of
the fact that plaintiff had moved an application for adducing evidence but that
application was rejected by the trial Court asking him to adduce his evidence. It
is submitted that once application was rejected for getting documents examined
in the hands of expert as defined under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, then
there was no justification for learned first appellate Court to have entertain the
application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and remand the matter.
Signature Not Verified
This Court categorically asked learned counsel for the appellants to
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
throw light on the orders of this Court in Civil Revision No.1485/1994, copy of
Date: 2022.07.07 17:01:53 IST
one order sheet dated 10/12/1994 is available on record. But, Shri Umesh
Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that he has received file
through some other counsel and said counsel has since dead, he is not in
contact with the client, therefore, he is not in a position to make comments as to
the final order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in said civil revision.
When learned counsel for the appellants makes aforesaid submissions,
then this Court ordered for summoning of the record of Civil Revision
No.1487/1994 and perused the record. On perusal of the record, it is revealed
that vide order dated 28/11/2001 Coordinate Bench of this Court had disposed
of the said revision and had found that evidence of the plaintiff had not begun.
Revision was filed in the year 1994. Therefore, it directed the plaintiff to
adduce evidence before the trial Court and thereafter if the trial Court found it
that assistance of the handwriting expert is necessary, directed the trial Court to
appoint an expert for the purpose.
Examination of handwriting expert will not prejudice any interest of any
party and is in consonance with the requirement of Section 45 of the Evidence
Act which provides for examination of an expert in case of the opinion of a
handwriting expert given in evidence is no less fallible than any other expert
opinion adduced in evidence with the result that such evidence has to be
received with great caution.
Learned District Judge had appointed an expert in terms of Section 45 of
the Evidence and the order, when tested on the touchstone of the directions of
this Court in Civil Revision No.1485/1994, cannot be faulted with as learned
trial Court had failed to apply its mind to the said order dated 28/11/2001,
Signature Not Verified
SAN therefore, the impugned judgment and decree of remand being just and correct
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.07.07 17:01:53 IST
under the facts and circumstances of the case does not call for any interference.
Accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Record of civil revision and lower Court be sent back in the record-
room.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.07.07 17:01:53 IST
