Judgment

Mr. Arun Monga, J.

Petition herein is for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh, whereby application filed by respondent/plaintiff for directing petitioner/defendant to give his handwriting, signatures and thumb impressions in Court, was allowed.

2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the petition herein.

2.1. Respondent filed a suit under SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT for permanent injunction restraining petitioner/defendant, his agents or servants from alienating, selling, transferring, mortgaging the suit property along with all rights appurtenant thereto to any other person except plaintiff/respondent, illegally and forcibly. Further, relief for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.09.2014, in respect of suit property and in alternative, for recovery of Rs.70 Lakh, was also sought.

2.2. Suit was contested by petitioner/defendant by filing detailed written statement (Annexure P-3). Issues were framed. Thereafter, plaintiff’s evidence started, in course thereof, plaintiff/respondent moved an application (Annexure P-4) seeking handwriting sample, signatures and thumb impressions of petitioner/defendant.

2.3. Application was contested by petitioner by filing detailed reply (Annexure P-5). Vide impugned order (Annexure P-1), Ld. Trial Court allowed the application by observing that Court has jurisdiction to direct a party to give his signature or handwriting for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare them with the disputed writing or for sending it to handwriting expert.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner/defendant would inter alia argue that plaintiff has to prove his own case. There is no provision to direct defendant to give any such specimen of handwriting. He would further argue that it is not a case where there are two different expert reports by parties in their respective evidence. Therefore, merely on the asking of plaintiff, it does not make out a ground to give directions to defendant to give his signatures or handwriting for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare them. He further contends that Court cannot compel a person to become a witness against himself.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, opposes the instant petition. He argues that since defendant is denying his signatures, thumb impression as well as his handwriting on the original agreement dated 10.09.2014, it is in the interest of justice if his signatures/thumb impressions and handwriting are compared by Ld. Trial Court or in the alternative by handwriting expert. Learned Trial Court has committed no error in allowing the application filed by respondent/plaintiff, is the contention.

5. I have heard competing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file.

6. At this stage, reference to Section 45 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 (for brevity, ‘Act of 1872’) would be necessary and the same is reproduced as under:

“45. Opinions of experts: 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 especially 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.”

7. It would also be important to refer to provisions of Section 73 of the Act of 1872, which for ready reference is reproduced as below:

“73. Comparison of signature, writing or