The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a handwriting expert may not be necessary at the current stage of the trial, and the decision regarding the disputed signatures will arise only after the evidence is concluded. The court also emphasized the defendant's opportunity to discredit the objected documents at a later stage, and referred to relevant legal provisions and previous judgments to support its decision.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Mukherjee, J. - In a suit inter alia for recovery of possession and mesne profits with an alternative prayer for enquiry as against the claim for mesne profits filed by a partnership firm (plaintiff) the sole defendant has applied for appointment of a handwriting expert for analysis of the signatures and writing in three documents which have been respectively marked as Exhibit-A , B and E (later two with objection from the defendant) through the plaintiff's first witness. The application has been made by the defendant at a stage when the defendant has already put about 170 questions in cross-examination to the said first witness of the plaintiff.

Defendant's/Applicant's contention:-

1. The defendant says that the plaintiff's first witness Lalman Chourasia has tendered in evidence a partnership deed of the plaintiff dated 16th August, 1999 said to have been signed by Manoj Jaiswal, Manish Jaiswal, Lalman Chourasia and Mrs. Seema Sharma claiming to be partners of the plaintiff partnership firm. This document has been marked as Exhibit-A with the signatures without any objection from the defendant's side. The said Lalman Chourasia while deposing as plaintiff's first witness has also tendered a document being a Deed of Retirement cum Admission of the plaintiff dated 31st March, 2007 as Exhibit-B. According to Lalman Chourasia the Exhibit-B has been signed by Seema Sharma, Surendra Prasad Jaiswal, himself (Lalman Chourasia), Manish Jaiswal and Manoj Jaiswal. This document has been tendered with the defendant's objection that the signatures of Manish Jaiswal and Manoj Jaiswal in Exhibit-B does not match with their respective signatures in Exhibit-A. Exhibit-E is said to be a Power of Attorney given by Manoj and Manish Jaiswal to Surendra Prasad Jaiswal. This document has been also tendered with the defendant's objection that the signatures contained therein do not match. According to Lalman Chourasia, the plaintiff's first witness Exhibit-E contains two signatures - Manoj Jaiswal and Manish Jaiswal.

2. The defendant says that the signatures of Manoj and Manish Jaiswal in Exhibit-A are real signatures. By referring to the style and nature of signatures of Manoj and Manish in Exhibit-B and E further says that on a comparison of their signatures in Exhibit-B and E with those in Exhibit-A the signatures are different and the same appears so even to naked eye. The defendant wants the genuineness of the signatures of Manish and Manoj Jaiswal contained in the said three documents be ascertained by hand writing expert taking Exhibit-A1 and A2 being the signatures of Manish and Manoj Jaiswal contained in Exhibit-A to be the genuine signatures of Manish and Manoj Jaiswal. The defendant says that this is necessary as the name of the plaintiff is mentioned as A. T. Goyee Enterprise, the original plaintiff in Exhibit-A while it is A. T. Gooyee Enterprise in Exhibit-B and E.

3. The defendant draws support for his claim for appointment of a handwriting expert in the said matter from the judgments reported in ( Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. The State of Bombay, (1957) AIR SC 857 ) [paragraph 11], ( Narayan Mukherjee vs. Krishna Dey, (1996) 2 CalLT 28 (HC)) [paragraph 10] and ( Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406 ) [paragraph 24, 26, 27 and 28].

Contention of the plaintiff:-

1. The plaintiff submits that the instant application is not maintainable and has been filed with an ulterior motive and malafide intent to seek a roving enquiry and further delay the proceedings. The plaintiff also submits that the defendant/ applicant has no locus standi to seek a handwriting expert for the documents in question as he is neither a party nor was he present when such documents were executed and as such cannot question the authenticity and/or veracity of the said documents.

2. According to the plaintiff the signatures in document being Exhibit-A was clearly identified by the plaintiff's witness Lalman Chourasia to have been signed in