Ramkaran S/O Sh. Dhuli Lal vs Shri Bherulal
2021 Latest Caselaw 1927 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13756/2020

Ramkaran S/o Sh. Dhuli Lal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Lileda
Charan, Tehsil And District Bundi.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       Shri Bherulal, (Since Deceased Through LRs)
1/1.     Smt. Pupshabai W/o Late Bherulal,
1/2.     Late Rajendra Kharola S/o Bherulal, (Since Deceased
         Through LRs)
1/2/1.   Smt. Dhropati Kharola W/o Late Rajendra Kharola, Aged
         About 37 Years,
1/2/2. Kumari Puja D/o Late Rajendra Kharola, Aged About 17
         Years,
1/2/3.   Kumari Jyoti D/o Late Rajendra Kharola, Aged About 14
         Years,
1/2/4. Vishnu Kharola S/o Late Rajendra Kharola, Aged About 12
         Years,
1/2/5.   Vishal Kharola S/o Late Rajendra Kharola, Aged About 9
         Years,
         Respondents no. 1/2/2 to 1/2/5 since Minor through

Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Dhropati Kharola 1/3. Ramesh Kharola S/o Bherulal, 1/4. Lal Bai D/o Bherulal, All R/o Village Lileda Chaardan, Tehsil And District Bundi ....Plaintiff/Respondent

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub-Registrar Cum Nayab Tehsildar, Taleda, District Bundi.

3. Administrative Land Development Cooperative Bank, Near Main Post Office, Bundi

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veyankatesh Garg

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

(2 of 4) [CW-13756/2020]

Order

22/02/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-

defendant (for short, 'the defendant') against the order dated

2.11.2020 passed by Addl. District Judge, Bundi in Civil Suit No.

36/2011, whereby the application filed by the defendant under

Order 8 Rule 1A (3) readwith Section 151 CPC has been

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the

respondent-original plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants.

The defendant put in appearance and filed written statement and

mentioned therein that the agreement dated 25.4.2000 produced

by the plaintiff with the suit was fabricated and forged. He filed

an application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) readwith Section 151

CPC seeking leave of the Court for taking on record the report of

hand writing expert dated 3.7.2020 in this regard, but the trial

Court dismissed the application on the ground that the

defendant's signatures were not compared with his signatures on

the original agreement, and the same was prepared on the basis

of comparison of signatures on the photostat copies of the

documents. Learned counsel further submits that not only the

original document can be sent for expert examination, but

photostat copies may also be sent for examination of hand writing

expert. However, the learned trial court erred while dismissing the

application and hence, the impugned order 2.11.2020 is liable to

be quashed and set-aside. In support of his submissions, he has

placed reliance on the following judgments:

i) Sugandhi Versus P. Rajkumar reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706

(3 of 4) [CW-13756/2020]

ii) Punamchand Jeengar Versus Satyanarayan & Ors. (SBCWP

No. 4213/2017; decided on 27.11.2017) passed by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur

iii) Mohd. Rafiq & Ors. Versus Smt. Jaitun & Ors. (SBCWP No.

1327/2017; decided on 25.7.2017) passed by the Coordinate

Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur

iv) Smt. Parvati & Anr. Versus Shri Ram Dayal Sharma (SBCWP

No. 8645/2014; decided on 4.6.2020) passed by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court

v) Kati Maheswara Rao Versus Uppati Lalitha & Ors. reported in

2018 (3) Civil Court Cases 085 (T&A).

Despite service of notice, none has appeared for the

respondents to oppose the petition.

Heard. Considered.

In the case of Kati Maheswara Rao (supra), it was held

by the Telengana and Andhra Pradesh High Court that not only the

original document can be sent for expert examination, but

photographic copies may also be sent for examination of hand

writing expert. It was also held that even inspite of availability of

expert evidence, the Court can also compare the signatures under

Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act and opinion of expert is only a

guiding factor and it is for the Court below to examine the entire

evidence on record including the evidence of the hand writing

expert and come to a just conclusion. As such, dismissal of the

application filed by the petitioner on this ground by the Court

below is erroneous.

In the instant case, when specific objection was raised

by the defendant in his written statement that the purported

agreement dated 25.4.2000 produced by the plaintiff was

(4 of 4) [CW-13756/2020]

fabricated and forged and did not bear the defendant's signatures

for which hand writing expert report with regard to defendant's

signatures was produced before the Court below, the application

ought to have been allowed, moreso in view of the fact that expert

report was merely a guiding factor and it is for the Court below to

examine the entire evidence on record including the evidence of

the hand writing expert and come to a just conclusion.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed;

the order dated 2.11.2020 passed by the trial court is quashed

and set-aside. Resultantly, the application under Order 8 Rule 1A

(3) readwith Section 151 CPC is allowed; leave is granted to the

defendant and the hand writing expert report is taken on record.

Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

DILIP KHANDELWAL /20

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)