SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Cal) 1058

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
PRASENJIT MANDAL, J.
Narayan Chowdhury Alias Karmakar - Appellant
Versus
Sanjoy Kumar Mondal - Respondent
C.O. No. 2688 of 2009
Decided on : Aug 25, 2010

Advocates appeared:
P.P. Roy, Debabrata Acharya, Prabir Adhya

The main legal point established is that the trial judge's comparison of signatures himself, contrary to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, exceeded his jurisdiction, and the defendant's application for appointment of a handwriting expert should be allowed.

Headnote:

Handwriting Expert - Transfer of Property Act - The court allowed the defendant's application for appointment of a handwriting expert to verify the signature on the A/D card, stating that the trial judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by making a comparison himself, contrary to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant denied receiving any notice under Section 106 and filed an application for verification of the signature on the A/D card by a handwriting expert, which was rejected by the trial judge.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by taking the task of the handwriting expert and allowed the defendant's application for appointment of a handwriting expert.

Issues: The issue was whether the trial judge's comparison of signatures himself, instead of appointing a handwriting expert, was contrary to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by making a comparison himself and that the defendant's application for appointment of a handwriting expert should be allowed.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order rejecting the defendant's application and allowed the defendant's petition for appointment of a handwriting expert, with the defendant bearing the costs of the handwriting expert. The trial judge was directed to proceed with the suit after receiving the handwriting expert's report.

JUDGMENT

Prasenjit Mandal, J.

1. THIS application is at the instance of the defendant/petitioner and is directed against the order no.14 dated July 23, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tehatta, District Nadia in Title Suit No.86 of 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has rejected the petition filed by the defendant.

2. THE short fact is that the plaintiffs filed the suit for ejectment under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Notice had been duly served upon the defendant and then the suit was filed. In that suit, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement denying that he had received any notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and that he had signed on the A/D card. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application for verification of the signature appearing on the A/D card by a handwriting expert and that application was rejected by the order impugned. Being aggrieved, the defendant has filed this application.

Upon perusal of the materials placed in support of the application and on hearing the submission of the learned Advocate for the parties, I find that the learned Trial Judge has adopted himself as an expert. He had compared the signature appearing on the A/D card along with other admitted signatures appearing on the documents such as vakalatnama, written statement, etc. and then he had come to a conclusion that there was no justification to allow the prayer of the defendant and to send the signatures of the defendant for examination by a handwriting expert. This is contrary to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Trial Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction by taking the task of the handwriting expert by making a comparison himself.

3. THE order impugned, therefore, cannot be supported. It is set aside. The petition filed by the defendant for appointment of a handwriting expert stands allowed. The learned Trial Judge shall proceed with the suit from that stage of sending the particulars to the handwriting expert for opinion. He shall fix the period within which the handwriting expert shall send his report to the learned Trial Judge. Thereafter, on receipt of the report he shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The defendant shall bear the costs of the handwriting expert.

4. THIS application is allowed in the manner indicated above. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocate for the parties on their usual undertaking.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top