Point of Law : Section 45 of the Evidence Act, It provides that when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting (or finger impressions), the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, (or in questions as to identity of handwriting) (or finger impressions) are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Correctness or otherwise of the order dated 24.01.2020, passed by the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon, in Title Suit No. 36/2017 (Sri. Priyanath Mandal vs. Smt. Ashalata Sarkar and Others) and the order dated 24.01.2020, passed by the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon, in Title Suit No. 37/2017 (Sri. Animesh Biswas and Another vs. Smt. Ashalata Sarkar and Others) are challenged in these 2 (two) Civil Revision Petitions preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners, namely Sri. Priyanath Mandal, Sri. Animesh Biswas and Smt. Anima Biswas, as common question is involved in both the petitions.

2. It is submitted at the Bar that both the petitions may be heard and disposed of at this admission stage itself by passing a common judgment and order. And accordingly, it is decided to dispose of both the petitions by this common judgment and order.

3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petitions are briefly stated as under:

“Respondents/defendants, Smt. Ashalata Sarkar, Sri. Manabendra Sarkar and Sri. Pranabendra Sarkar, entered into an agreement, dated 20.03.2017, for selling a plot of land to one Sri. Chandra Mohan Mandal, proforma defendant in Title Suit No. 36/2017. While during subsistence of the agreement and before obtaining the sale permission, the parties entered into a mutual agreement, whereby, the respondents agreed to transfer a portion of land measuring 2 Katha 10 Lechas, in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, Shri Priyanath Mandal and pursuant to such mutual oral agreement and after payment of part of the consideration amount, the respondents have applied for sale permission in respect of the aforesaid 2 Katha 10 Lechas of land in favour of the plaintiff. But, the respondents, later on, refused to complete the sale process and then the petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 36/2017 for specific performance of the contract. The respondents entered appearances and contested the Suit and denied their signatures on the sale permission form and in the affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for seeking opinion of expert regarding similarity of signatures of the respondents and the signatures found in the sale permission application form and affidavit, vide Petition No. 1427/2019. Thereafter, the respondents had submitted objection to the said petition and then the learned Court below, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the petition, vide impugned order dated 24.01.2020, on the ground that no original copies of the application form along with affidavit (Exhibit-7), dated 30.03.2017, are available on the record and the photostate copies of the said documents are not sufficient to enable the expert for determination of the genuineness of the signatures. Besides, the learned Court below held that the agreement for sale, dated 20.03.2017, which the plaintiff has sought specific performance, was not executed between the defendants and the plaintiff, rather it was executed between the defendants and pro-forma defendant and there is no specific plea as to the execution of any agreement either orally or written on the basis of which the defendants allegedly signed the permission forms for selling 2 Katha 10 Lechas of land and that in order to claim specific performance of contract, there must be a valid agreement between the parties and it is not necessary that the agreement must be written, but it must be stated that there was an oral agreement between the 2 (two) parties competent to enter into contract for lawful consideration. Whereas, there is no mention of any such execution of any agreement for sale between the plaintiff and the defendants and the sale permission forms are not agreement for sale and are merely certain formalities required for transferring a plot of land. The execution or non-execution of the sale permission forms is not a decisive factor f