IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Moinul Islam Chowdhury

CIVIL REVISION NO. 578 OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Against Order)

-And-

IN THE MATTER OF:

Md. Abdul Ali

--- Defendant-Petitioner. -Versus-

Most. Anowara Begum and others

--- Plaintiff-Opposite Parties. Mr. Mohammad Zahirul Amin, Advocate

--- For the Defendant-Petitioner. Mr. Abdul Wahab Dewan Kajol, Advocate

---For the Plaintiff-Opposite Parties.

Heard on: 16.07.2023 and 20.07.2023. Judgment on: 20.07.2023.

At the instance of the present defendant-petitioner, Md. Abdul Ali, this Rule was issued upon a revisional application filed under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Joypurhat in the Civil Revision No. 32 of 2019 dismissing the revision and thereby affirming the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar,

Joypurhat in the SCC Suit No. 02 of 2009 rejecting the application filed by the defendant under section 45 of the Evidence Act for examination of signature of the defendant by handwriting expert should not be set aside.

The relevant facts for disposal of this Rule, inter-alia, are that the predecessor of the opposite parties as the plaintiff instituted the SCC Suit No. 02 of 2009 in the court of the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Joypurhat for eviction and due rent against the petitioner in respect of the shop ( two rooms) described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaint contains that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff and he rented 2 (two) rooms to the one Bhupendra Nath Sarker. The said Bhupendra Nath Sarker became a defaulter to pay the rent. The landlord- plaintiff filed the Other Suit No. 132 of 1979 for recovery of the rent. The suit was decreed on a compromise on 15.01.1981. Subsequently, the plaintiff again rented the said 2 (two) rooms to the tenant-defendant-petitioner but after December 2006 the tenant again became a defaulter. However, earlier on 21.09.1997 a Bainapatra was executed by both parties and the defendant- tenant paid a major amount of Baina money to purchase the property (2 rooms shop). But the landlord-plaintiff received money but failed to execute a sale deed which has been described in the written statement filed by the present-defendant- petitioner. In the said suit the present petitioner filed an application for a handwriting expert opinion as to his signature in the said tenant agreement.

After hearing the parties the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Joypurhat passed an order on 14.11.2019 rejecting the said application for handwriting expert opinion. Being aggrieved the present defendant-petitioner filed the Civil Revision No. 32 of 2019 before the learned District Judge, Joypurhat who also concurrently found against the present petitioner. Being aggrieved challenging the said impugned order of the learned District Judge, Joypurhat filed this revisional application under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rule was issued thereupon.

Mr. Mohammad Zahirul Amin, the learned Advocate, appearing for the defendant-petitioner submits that both the learned courts below failed to consider that since the plaintiff claimed that there was an agreement for rent between the parties and the instant petitioner categorically denied the said signature upon the agreement and claimed that the agreement was forged and in such a situation it would be just and proper that the signature of the petitioner in the rent agreement should be examined by the handwriting expert for proper appreciation and disposal of the suit, as such,