IMPORTANT POINT
The inadmissibility of a document under relevant legislation can impact the admissibility of related evidence, such as the testimony of a handwriting expert.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral) - This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the SCJ/RC, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in C.S. No. 699/2016 titled as "Lalit Babbar v. Naresh Chitara" whereby, the Trial Court disallowed the prayer made by the Petitioner for examining a handwriting expert for proving the handwriting and signatures on the pagri receipt dated 02.09.2023 (EX. DW?) (`said pagri receipt') alleged to have been issued by the Respondent in favour of the Petitioner.

1.1. The Petitioner is the defendant and the Respondent is the plaintiff in the civil suit filed for possession in respect of the property bearing No. B-1, Babbar Market, Sultanpuri Road, Nangloi, Delhi (`suit property') as well as arrears of rent and injunction.

1.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to by their rank and status before the Trial Court.

1.3. The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 05.12.2018 while allowing an application dated 03.08.2018 filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') permitted the defendant to lead evidence of four (4) additional witness. It, however, declined permitting leading evidence of the handwriting expert.

1.4. This Court while issuing notice in the present petition on 18.12.2018 has observed that the proceedings before the Trial Court will be subject to the outcome of the present petition.

1.5. During the pendency of this proceedings, the trial stands concluded and the Trial Court vide judgement dated 07.03.2022 has decreed the suit for possession and awarded mesne profits @ Rs.16,000/- per month in favour of the Respondent herein.

2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the arrears of mesne profits due and recoverable from the defendant as on date stands at Rs.15,00,000/- and the defendant has unilaterally stopped making payment of the rent.

3. The learned counsel for the defendant states that though the Trial Court has pronounced the final judgement and order dated 07.03.2022, in view of the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by this Court; he is entitled to pursue the present petition.

3.1. He states that since the said judgement is subject to the outcome of this petition; the defendant is pressing for the relief of leading evidence of the handwriting expert to prove the signatures of the plaintiff on the pagri receipt. He states that the pagri receipt shows that the plaintiff herein agreed to receive a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- in cash from the defendant.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the plaintiff states that issues were framed in the suit on 18.03.2014 and the defendant filed list of witnesses on 25.05.2018. He states that in this list of witness, the defendant did not propose leading evidence of handwriting expert for proving the handwriting and signatures on the alleged pagri receipt dated 02.09.2023 (EX. DW?).

4.1. He states that subsequently, in fact, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2021 passed in CM(M) No. 1092/2021 has upheld the order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the Trial Court holding that the pagri receipt is an unlawful document in view of the Section 5(2)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`DRC Act, 1958').

4.2. He states that therefore, the pagri receipt is inadmissible in evidence and therefore, no evidence of handwriting expert can be led in respect of said pagri receipt.

4.3. He states that in any event, the Trial Court in the final judgement and order dated 07.03.2022 has duly considered the pleas raised by the defendant relying upon the said pagri receipt and has categorically rejected the said defence.

4.4. He states that therefore, the impugned order dated 05.12.2018 does not suffer from any infirmity.

5. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he admits that the transaction recorded in the pagri receipt is illegal and therefore, the receipt is inadmissible in evidence.

5.1. He states t