Present vs For The
2022 Latest Caselaw 258 Tri

                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA

                               RSA 51 OF 2019
Present:
  For the appellant (s)          : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate.

  For the respondent (s)         :   Mr. S.M.Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate.

Ms. A. Pal, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH 03.03.2022 Order Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants. Also heard Mr. S.M.Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondents.

In this second appeal, the issue relates to the valid execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff has denied that he executed the sale deed No.I- 5309, dated 06.07.1976. The plaintiff has further denied his signature in the sale deed. None of the learned courts below thought it fit to examine or compare the signature of the plaintiff which was exhibited as Exbt.E.

When the matter came up before the court, both the learned counsels have urged to remand the matter to the learned trial court and they have no objection if all the issues are determined afresh.

I find the submissions of learned counsels appearing for the parties reasonable. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the learned trial court for adducing fresh evidence. The court shall entertain application, if filed by any of the parties to the suit to examine the signature of the plaintiff by an expert. That apart, all the issues are kept open including the issue of limitation.

If the disputes regarding signature of plaintiff is sent to forensic expert, then, the cost thereof shall be borne by both the parties.

Accordingly, both the judgments passed by learned trial court as well the learned first appellate court stand set aside and quashed.

Send the records accordingly.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant appeal stands disposed.

JUDGE