[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam vs Bhagwansingh on 11 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6486
1 MP-1241-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 1241 of 2026
GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS
Versus
BHAGWANSINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Zenith Chhablani - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Manish Sankhla - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred against the impugned orders dated 27.01.2026, Annexure P-1 and
11.02.2026, Annexure P-2 whereby an application under Order 13 Rule 10
of CPC for calling the original documents has been dismissed and also by
subsequent order dated 11.02.2026 opportunity to lead evidence has been
closed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original
document Namantran Panji dated 14.01.1992 and sale deeds dated
27.03.1976 and 10.05.1985 were summoned before the trial Court for getting
it examined through expert witness who has prepared the report with regard
to the thumb impression and handwriting and thereafter the aforesaid
documents were sent back. The report was already submitted before the trial
Court and before examination of the expert witness, the aforesaid documents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6486
2 MP-1241-2026
were required to be produced in original. Namantran Panji was received
from the record room of the Collector and the sale deeds dated 27.03.1976
and 10.05.1985 were to be produced from the Registrar Office, but the Court
below has failed to appreciate the contentions in right perspective and
dismissed the application vide order dated 27.01.2026, Annexure P-1
holding that now the requisition of the aforesaid documents is not required
as photographs have been taken by the handwriting expert from the original
documents and report has been produced. The order passed by the Court
below is bad in law, as expert witness cannot be examined without
requisitioning the original documents. He further submits that on 11.02.2026
opportunity to lead evidence has been closed on the ground that petitioners
were afforded ample opportunities for leading evidence, but failed to avail
the opportunities therefore right to lead evidence was closed. This closure of
right to lead evidence is adversely affecting the petitioners/plaintiffs before
the trial Court. Hence, prays for allowing this petition by setting aside the
impugned orders.
3. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioners and perused the record.
4. From perusal of the impugned order Annexure P-1 it is apparent
that fact has been taken into account that the signatures in the sale deed dated
27.03.1976 which has been executed by Malusingh father of the plaintiffs is
present in the Register by way of thumb impression. It has also been taken
note that sale deeds dated 27.03.1976 and 10.05.1985 have been raised in
evidence and marked as exhibits and certified copy of the sale deeds are also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6486
3 MP-1241-2026
on record. Since at the time of taking photographs of thumb impression,
original documents were requisitioned and photographs were taken from
them, therefore, now at the time of evidence of expert witness, requisition of
the documents is not required.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the
reasoning given by the learned Court below in dismissing the application is
just and proper and needs no interference by invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction. The other impugned order dated 11.02.2026 whereby
opportunity to lead evidence has been closed vividly mentions the sequence
of dates given to the petitioners/plaintiffs to lead evidence between
01.09.2022 to 03.01.2023, but looking to the fact that report of the expert
witness which has been allowed to be prepared by the orders of the Court
requires to be examined and if he is not examined that report will be of no
consequence. Hence, this order of closing the right to lead evidence is set
aside. One opportunity is to be given to the petitioners to call the expert
witness subject to completing the formalities of depositing the amount for
witness expenditure and the process fee etc.
6. In the light of the aforesaid, this petition is partly allowed to the
extent that the order dated 27.01.2026, Annexure P-1 is upheld and challenge
to that order is dismissed and with regard to the order dated 11.02.2026,
Annexure P-2 whereby opportunity to lead evidence has been closed is set
aside.
7. The petitioners may file copy of this order before the trial Court
and the trial Court will comply with the order by giving one opportunity to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6486
4 MP-1241-2026
the petitioners for examining the expert witness who has prepared the report
with regard to the thumb impression and handwriting.
8. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed to the extent as
indicated herein above.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
