Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2972
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SHASHI KANT DIXIT - Petitioner
Versus
RENUKA SHARMA AND ANR. - Respondents
CM(M) No.1060 of 2016 & CM No.39017 of 2016 (for stay).
Decided On : 21-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nitesh Mehra and Ms. Hitaakshi Mehra, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Priyam Mehta and Mr. Udit Sharma, Advs.
The right to examine a handwriting expert must be exercised at the appropriate stage of the suit and cannot be claimed at a belated stage, especially when it would delay the proceedings.
Headnote:
Section 151 - Application for permission to have signatures of respondent photographed and examined from a handwriting expert - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - [Section 151]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to have the signatures of the respondent photographed and examined from a handwriting expert in a suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property. The court dismissed the application, stating that the need for the petitioner to examine the handwriting expert arose only after the respondent denied his signatures on the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's request to examine the handwriting expert was a dilatory tactic, as the signatures of the respondent had been in issue since the beginning of the suit. The court also emphasized the need to dispose of the suit expeditiously, as it had already been pending for 18 years.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be allowed to examine a handwriting expert after the respondent denied his signatures on the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's right to examine a handwriting expert must be exercised at the appropriate stage of the suit and cannot be claimed at a belated stage, especially when it would delay the proceedings. The court also emphasized the need to dispose of long-pending suits expeditiously.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no costs.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order (dated 12th August, 2016 in CS No.59/16 of the Court of Additional District Judge (Central) District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) of dismissal of the application of the petitioner / defendant no.2 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for permission to have the signatures of the respondent no.2 / defendant no.1 on the disputed documents as well as admitted signatures photographed and examined from an handwriting expert and to file the report of the handwriting expert and to examine the handwriting expert in evidence.
2. The counsel for the respondent no.1 / plaintiff has been appearing on advance notice.
3. Though the parties were referred to Mediation but without any success.
4. The suit from which this petition arises has been filed by the respondent no.1 / plaintiff for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property. The Agreement of Sale of the respondent no.1 / plaintiff is with the respondent no.2 / defendant no.1 and the petitioner / defendant no.2 is the subsequent purchaser from the respondent no.2 / defendant no.1.
5. The learned Additional District Judge, vide the impugned order, dismissed the application observing that there is already on record a report of the handwriting expert and the petitioner / defendant no.2 is only seeking appointment of another handwriting expert to undertake an exercise which had already been undertaken before the Court and that the Court has now to consider the evidence on record and the petitioner / defendant no.2 cannot re-agitate the issue of comparison of handwriting of the respondent no.2 / defendant no.1 which already stands “as evidence on record”.
6. The counsel for the petitioner / defendant no.2 has argued that the need for the petitioner / defendant no.2 to examine the handwriting expert arose only after the respondent no.2 / defendant no.1 when appearing in his evidence, denied his signatures on the Agreement to Sell of which specific performance is claimed by the respondent no.1 / plaintiff.
7. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner / defendant no.2, whether the respondent no.2 / defendant no.1 had at any earlier stage admitted his signatures on the Agreement to Sell.
8. The counsel for the petitioner / defendant no.2 states that the respondent no.2 / defendant no.1 in his written statement also had not admitted the Agreement to Sell of which specific performance was claimed.
9. On further enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner / defendant no.2 states that the petitioner / defendant no.2 also in his written statement has disputed the signatures of the respondent no.2 / defendant no.1 on the Agreement to Sell of which specific performance is claimed by the respondent no.1 / plaintiff.
10. That being the situation, the petitioner / defendant no.2 cannot be heard to say that the need to examine the handwriting expert arose only when the respondent no.2 / defendant no.1 in his evidence denied his signatures. From the statements/arguments of the counsel for the petitioner / defendant no.2, it is evident that the signatures of the respondent no.2 / defendant no.1 on the Agreement to Sell of which the respondent no.1 / plaintiff is claiming specific performance, have been in issue since the very beginning of the suit.
11. Not only so, the learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned order, has also recorded that the respondent no.1 / plaintiff had on 12th October, 2007 made an application under Section 151 of the CPC for the respondent no.2 / defendant no.1 to appear in Court and give specimen signatures in order to enable the respondent no.1 / plaintiff to have the necessary comparison of his signatures done and orders in this regard were passed and on 9th March, 2009 the respondent no.2 / defendant no.1 appeared before the Court and gave his specimen signatures. It is further recorded that subsequently on 19th August, 2009, report was filed b
