18.12.2025 Sl. No.13 Court No.4 Ali CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE C.O. 154 of 2025 Smt. Kunti Rani Paul Vs.

Smt. Shibani Paul Mr. Satyam Sarkar …..for the petitioner.

Mr. Hillol Saha Podder ….for the O.P. No.1.

1. Learned advocates for the parties are present.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 04.07.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar Cooch Behar in connection with Title Suit No. 03 of 2016.

3. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 10A of the C.P.C. was pleased to dismiss the same.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Judge has come with this instant application.

5. Upon perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court it appears that the learned Trial Court disposed the application under Order 26 Rule 10A of the C.P.C. by observing as follows:

“In order to allow the instant petition for sending the document for expert opinion the plaintiff must satisfy the court that such document exists and the plaintiff has to produce the same before the court. No opinion can be formed by the court without perusing the document. In the instant suit the plaintiff has not produced either original or photocopy of alleged affidavit. Rather it is submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff that the said document is not in custody of the plaintiff. In my considered opinion it is for the plaintiff’s to produce the challenged document before the court and the court cannot collect evidence on behalf of the party. Accordingly, in absence of challenged document, there is no question of examining the genuineness of the said document or comparing the same with any specimen by the expert. Rather on perusal of the record it appears that the defendant has filed unregistered Baynapatra and Kabalapatra in respect of stall no. 167 i.e., suit property which bears plaintiff’s signature but the plaintiff did not challenge her signature on those documents nor prayed for sending those documents for examination by expert”.

6. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the opposite party No. 1. Perused the petition filed and the materials on record.

7. It is an admitted position that the documents for which the application was made for handwriting expert was not before the learned Trial Court. Thus, this Court does not find any irregularities in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge.

8. However, as the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the relevant documents for which the application for handwriting expert is sought for is lying with the Cooch Behar Municipality who is pro-forma defendant in the said suit. Thus, the said Municipality can be directed to produce the said documents.

9. Upon considering the submissions of the learned advocate this Court is of the view that although the Trial Court has power under Order 11 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. to direct production by any party of such of the document in his possession or power relating to any matter in question in such suit as the court think right but this power cannot be exercised without any formal application being made by any of the parties giving the necessary particulars.

10. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff that necessary application has already made in this regard. Thus in the interest of justice, this Court request the learned Trial Court to consider and decide the said application in accordance with law and take a decision thereto.

11. It is however made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the suit and all points will be kept open.

12. With this observation, the application stands disposed of.

13. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.

(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)