Any party asserting an issue is entitled under law to bring on record all and any evidence in its power, custody, and possession before the Court to make good its case.

JUDGMENT :

Tushar Rao Gedela, J.

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. The petitioner challenges the order the dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court in suit No. 619515/2016 titled “Jai Singh Vs. L. C. Sharma” whereby the application under Order VIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC, 1908 filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff seeking summoning of one Mr. Ashok Kashyap, handwriting expert, along with original report was dismissed.

2. Mr. Vinaik submits that the aforesaid application was filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff seeking examination of handwriting expert to allay the objections raised by the respondent that the signatures of the respondent appended to the agreement to sell and receipt are forged and fabricated.

3. Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik submits that originally, one Mr. B. Lal, handwriting expert was sought to be examined, however, unfortunately, the said Mr. B. Lal had expired.

4. Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik also further submits that it is only as a replacement of Mr. B. Lal that an application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC, 1908 was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking summoning of another handwriting expert, namely, Mr. Ashok Kashyap along with the original handwriting report.

5. Mr. Vinaik, submits that in the interregnum, unfortunately Mr. Ashok Kashyap also expired.

6. Mr Vinaik also submits that the present suit, whereunder the impugned order arises, was filed in the year 1998 and has been hanging fire for more than three decades and prays that appropriate orders may be passed forthwith.

7. Mr. Vinaik, on the basis of above submission, asserts that so far as the summoned witnesses are concerned, the individual names need not be included in the list of documents and in case such witnesses are brought before the Court, it can examine them.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1(b) raises an objection that the petitioner/plaintiff seeks to prove the report filed on record of an expert, who unfortunately expired in the interregnum, examining another handwriting expert who is not the author of the original report, and as such is impermissible in law.

9. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner/plaintiff sought to examine initially Mr. B. Lal and subsequently Mr. Ashok Kashyap, unfortunately both had expired in the interregnum. However, learned counsel submits that a third party to the report cannot be expected as permitted to prove the report of another expert, not being the original author of the same.

10. Be that as it may, the arguments addressed by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1(b) are on merits which may be raised before the learned Trial Court.

11. As of now and in respect of lis pending before this Court, this Court is only called upon to consider whether the learned Trial Court could have passed the impugned order depriving the petitioner/plaintiff from exercising its right as available under law.

12. This Court has also considered the relevant facts that the petitioner has placed on record documents which the respondents have resisted and denied their signatures appended thereon. To the contrary, petitioner/plaintiff asserts that the signatures appended to such documents are of the deceased respondent.

13. It is settled law that any party which asserts an issue, is entitled under law to bring on record all and any evidence in its power, custody and possession before the Court to make good its case.

14. In the present case, the handwriting experts report is one such document which needs to be placed on record and to be proved in accordance with law.

15. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court is the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and is quashed.

16. The learned Trial Court shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to seek summoning of an alternative handwriting expert in order to substantiate its contentions pending before it.

17. The aforesaid observations are without prejudice to the rights and co