1990 Supreme(MP) 699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.K. DUBEY, J.
Kanakdevi (Smt.) – Appellant
Vs.
Jainarain – Respondent
C.R. No. 85 of 1990 (G)
Decided on : 03-05-1990

Headnote:(1) Evidence Act, 1872 – S. 45 – opinion of expert relevant – permission examine him should he afforded.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.18, R.2 (4) – sufficient ground shown – witness may be examined at any stage of suit before delivery of judgment.

        Short Note

       1. Brief facts leading to this revision are: that the plaintiff rested his case on a document Ex. P.7, the family settlement, wherein it is said that plaintiff's brother Satyanarain is also a party to the said document. Satyanarain during the pendency of the suit transferred the suit property to present petitioner Satyanarain in his written – statement has denied the execution of the said document. After the close of the evidence of the plaintiff, the present petitioner who is the defendant before her evidence commenced applied under O. 16, rule 1 of the C.P. Code for summoning handwriting expert Banmali Dwivedi. This prayer was opposed on the ground that in the list, which was filed on the setting date, the name of the handwriting expert was not included as a witness, secondly, the present petitioner is a third party to the document, therefore, cannot challenge the validity of the document in any manner. Lastly, it was opposed on the ground that the plaintiff's evidence is over, and at such a late stage the petitioner cannot be allowed to produce hand – writing expert.

       2. Held : After hearing counsel, I am of the opinion that this revision deserves to be allowed in the manner indicated hereinafter. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground of delay. That dismissal of the application was not proper, as the petitioner wanted to produce the hand – writing expert even if the stage of examining a witness was over, the hearing was not complete and the case was not posted for judgment. Order 18, rule 2, sub – clause (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that the Court may direct for reasons to be recorded to permit any party to examine any witness at any stage, i.e. even before the delivery of the judgment, subject to the condition that a good ground or a sufficient cause is made out to the satisfaction of the Court.

       3. But, in this case as contended by Shri Chaturvedi the Court has not considered the relevancy of the witness; whether in the facts of the case, the examination of the witness is relevant or not. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court should first consider the relevancy of the witneS. If the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of Handwriting Expert is relevant for the just determination of the case, certainly the permission to the petitioner shall be granted.

       Revision allowed.