The court ruled that for handwriting comparison under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, contemporaneous signatures are necessary; reliance on outdated documents is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1.

2. The Notice upon the opposite party No.3 is found to be validly served and the notice upon opposite party Nos.9 and 12 have been served through family members which is recorded in the order dated 22.11.2024.

3. Opposite Party Nos.9 to 16 are found to be proforma opposite parties and in view of that the notice upon them have been dispensed with by order dated 22.11.2024.

4. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 24.02.2024 passed by learned Sub-Judge (Sr. Division) – VIII, Deoghar in Original Suit No.129 of 2013 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to reject the petition dated 27.09.2023 filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for examination of the signature of Gajadhar Rout and Shailja Nand Prasad.

5. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit which was instituted being Original Suit No.129 of 2013 for a decree of declaration that the un-registered document dated 15.06.1975 and the registered deed of sale No.429 of 2013 is illegal, void, forged and fabricated and not binding on the plaintiffs and the cost of the suit was also prayed. He submits that on notice the defendants have appeared and filed their written statement and the suit is pending for evidence of the defendants after closure of the plaintiff’s evidence. He submits that on 27.09.2023, the plaintiffs filed a petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the disputed and admitted documents to the handwriting expert for examination of signature made upon the aforesaid documents contained in Annexure-1. He submits that the rejoinder to that was filed by the defendants and the learned Court has decided the same by order dated 24.02.2024 and pleased to dismiss the same. He submits that the signature on the Parwarik Vaywastha Patra is disputed and in view of that the said petition has been filed for comparing of the signature and the learned Court has wrongly rejected the same. He submits that three documents have been relied in the nature of certified copy of the sale deed for the year 1943, xerox copy of the sale deed for the year 1943 and certified copy of Title Execution Case No.10 of 2005 along with rejoinder petition, time petition and vakalatnama have been relied upon that verification and the learned Court has wrongly passed the said order. He submits that in view of Section 45, the learned Court was expected to allow the said petition.

6. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.2 and 4 to 8 opposes the prayer and submits that the learned Court has rightly rejected the said petition considering that the contemporaneous signature and admitted signature obtained subsequent to date of disputed signature has not been brought on record and the learned Court has further rightly held that in the course of time the signature of any person can change and for Parwarik Vaywastha Patra of the year 1975 the reliance has been placed on the signature of 1943. He submits in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the order.

7. Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 adopted the argument of Mr. Prashant Pallav.

8. It is an admitted position that Original Suit No.129 of 2013 has been instituted for decree of declaration that un-registered document dated 15.06.1975 and the registered deed of Sale No.429 of 2013 is illegal, void, forged and fabricated and not binding on the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit the said petition has been filed and the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the same considering that the disputed signature can be compared with admitted signature which were contemporaneo