[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemendra vs Dheeraj Modi S/O Late Shri Bharatsingh ... on 15 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10028
1 MP-6216-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 15th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 6216 of 2025
HEMENDRA
Versus
DHEERAJ MODI S/O LATE SHRI BHARATSINGH MODI THROUGH
NEXT FRIEND JAYESH S/O SHRI DHEERA MODE DECEASE AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Nitin Phadke - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashutosh Surana - Advocate for LRs of respondent No.1.
Ms. Surbhi Bahal - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.7 / State.
ORDER
This Misc. Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India assailing the impugned dated 06/10/2025 (Annex.-P/1)
passed in RCSA/49/2022 by II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Badnawar,
District Dhar (M.P.), whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner
/ defendant No.1 for calling Handwriting Expert Report on will of Ratanbai
dated 08/03/2014, has been dismissed.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant No.1 submits that
respondent No.1 / plaintiff, who has challenged the aforesaid will has filed an
application for calling expert's report on the signatures appearing on the will
and that application was allowed. He further submits that his documents have
not been considered while preparing the report, hence report is incomplete
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10028
2 MP-6216-2025
and therefore, he has filed another application for calling report of another
Handwriting Expert but his application has been dismissed. Leaned counsel
relying upon the orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Nandu @ Gandharva Singh Vs. Ratiram Yadav and Others reported
in 2019(3) M.P.L.J. 296 ; and Chenram S/o Parasramji Patidar Vs. Banshilal
S/o Radhakishanji Suthar reported in 2017 (3) M.P.L.J. 592 submits that one
party has been allowed to adduce expert's report of handwriting or
signatures, the same facility should be given to the other aggrieved party
also. On these submissions, learned counsel prays for allowing the petition
by setting aside the impugned order and to allow the application filed by the
petitioner before the Trial Court to call a report from the Handwriting Expert
of his own choice.
3 ) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / plaintiff has
opposed the prayer on the ground that Handwriting Expert was appointed
with the consent of both the parties and documents were also given, which
were relevant for preparing the report, therefore, there is no need for calling
second handwriting expert report and the same has been discussed in the
impugned order, therefore, no exception can be taken in the impugned order,
whereby application filed by the petitioner for appointing another
Handwriting Expert has been dismissed. On these grounds, learned counsel
prays for dismissing the petition.
4) Heard and considered the submissions and perused the record.
5) It is not in dispute that will dated 08/03/2014 of Ratanbai, who was
mother of the plaintiff and defendant is under dispute in the suit. Plaintiff is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10028
3 MP-6216-2025
challenging the signatures of Ratanbai on the aforesaid will, therefore, the
Court has appointed a Handwriting Expert for resolving the controversy with
the consent of both the parties and documents were also given to expert for
preparing the report.
6) Report has already been submitted and even cross-examination has
also been conducted, therefore, opportunity to question the report, if it was
incomplete in the eyes of petitioner, has also been given. There was no point
in calling second Handwriting Expert report in the aforesaid factual matrix of
the which. The orders relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Nandu @
Gandharva Singh (Supra) a n d Chenram (Supra) are of no avail to the
petitioner.
7) Resultantly, this Misc. Petition being devoid of substance, fails and
is hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Tej
