The judgment debtor/opposite party no.2 has obstructed the execution of an eviction decree passed by the learned Trial Judge on 31st March, 1993 which was affirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by setting up the petitioner herein who filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of the Civil Procedure Code for protecting his possession in the suit property which he allegedly received from the judgment debtor in pursuance of a franchise agreement entered between the judgment debtor and the petitioner herein on 18th September, 2002. The petitioner also claimed that his right to remain in possession in the suit property arising out of the said franchise agreement was further strengthened by a subsequent letter allegedly written by the decree holder on 14th August, 2005 wherein she assured that she would accept the petitioner as a direct tenant as soon as the litigation with the direct tenant would be over. The rate of rent for such letting was mentioned in the said letter. Even the acceptance of a sum of rupees one lakh in cash as advance was mentioned in the said letter. It was alleged by the petitioner that the said letter was written by the decree holder in pursuance of the request made by the petitioner herein for accepting it as a direct tenant under the decree holder vide its letter dated 8th August, 2005. Thus, these three documents viz. (1) the franchise agreement dated 18th September, 2002 entered between the judgment debtor and the petitioner, (2) the letter dated 8th August, 2005 written by a partner of the petitioner company addressed to the decree holder and (3) the letter dated 14th August, 2005 allegedly written by the decree holder addressed to the petitioner, are the sheet-anchor of the petitioner’s claim in support of its right of possession in the suit property.

The decree holder opposite party no.1 contested the petitioner’s said application under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of the Civil Procedure Code by denying the plaintiff’s right of possession in the suit property. The receipt of the letter dated 8th August, 2005 issued under the signature of a partner of the petitioner company, by the decree holder was specifically denied by her in her objection filed against the petitioner’s said application. Even the signature of the decree holder appearing in the letter allegedly written by her on 14th August, 2005 was categorically denied by the decree holder in her objection. The decree holder contended that she was not in India at the material time when the petitioner’s said letter dated 8th August, 2005 was allegedly sent to her at her address in Calcutta. She further contended that even at the time of issuance of the letter dated 14th August, 2005, she was not in India and as such, not only the receipt of the petitioner’s letter was denied but also the issuance of the letter dated 14th August, 2005 by her, was categorically denied by her in her objection. The decree holder claimed that her signature was forged in the said letter and the said letter was never issued by her. Since the decree holder disputed her signature in the letter dated 14th August, 2005, the petitioner herein applied for referring the said disputed signature of the decree holder to the handwriting expert for comparing the same with her admitted signature so that the dispute regarding the genuineness of the said letter can be decided by the learned Executing Court. The learned Executing Court rejected the petitioner’s said application and directed the decree holder to appear before the Court to give her signature before the Court so that her signature can be compared with the disputed signature appearing in the letter dated 14th August, 2005 by the Executing Court. In fact, the learned Executing Court compared the signature given by the decree holder in Court with the disputed signature appearing in the letter dated 14th August, 2005 and came to a conclusion that the signature appearing in the said letter is