IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 1600 of 2025 Nripotee Ranjan Das Vs.

Jharna Das WITH CO 1599 of 2025 For the Petitioner : Mr. Partha Pratim Ray Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee Mr. Samrat Chakraborty ….. advocates For the Opposite Party : Mr. Goutam Brahma Ms. Pampa Saha Mr. Subhajit Chattopadhyay …advocates CAV on : 08.05.2025 Judgment on : 21.05.2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. These Civil Revision Applications were heard analogously as the same arises out of Title Suit No. 125 of 2012 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kakdwip and the issues are also interlinked and for such reason, the same are decided by this common order.

2. CO No. 1599 of 2025 is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kakdwip, District- 24 Parganas (South) in Title Suit No. 125 of 2012. The order dated 25.03.2025 passed in the aforesaid suit is under challenge also at the instance of the defendant in CO No. 1600 of 2025.

3. By the order dated 30.11.2016, the application for appointment of hand writing expert was allowed. By the order dated 25.03.2025 the application filed by the petitioner for re-examination of the hand writing expert stood rejected.

4. The opposite party filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction being Title Suit No. 32 of 2001 which stood transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Kakdwip and was renumbered as Title Suit no. 125 of 2012. The plaintiff/opposite party herein filed an application for comparison of the alleged signature of Jharna Das as appearing in the Exhibits F and C/1 with the admitted signature of Jharna Das as appearing in the deed of partnership and the balance sheet. The learned Trial Judge allowed such application by the Order dated 30.11.2016. Thereafter, the hand writing expert filed his report. Petitioner filed an application praying for re-examination of the hand writing expert.

Such application was rejected by the Order dated 25.03.2025.

5. Mr. Ray learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff/opposite party herein adduced evidence as PW-1 and during cross- examination it was admitted by her that the signature appearing in the letter dated 12.12.2000 is her signature. He further submitted that in view of such admission in the evidence there was no necessity to appoint a hand writing expert as there is no dispute with regard to the genuineness of the signature of Jharna Das as appearing in the letter being Exhibit F. He thus submitted that the order allowing the appointment of hand writing expert should be recalled.

6. Mr. Ray further contended that the petitioner could not put certain questions to the handwriting expert during cross examination and for such reason, petitioner sought to recall the said witness for further cross examination.

7. Mr. Brahma learned advocate appearing for the opposite party raises an objection as to the maintainability of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being C.O. 1599 of 2025 at such a belated stage. He submitted that CO No. 1599 was filed more than 8 years after the passing of the order appointing a hand writing expert. He further contended that pursuant to the order the hand writing expert submitted his report and the hand writing expert has also been cross-examined by the defendants on several occasions. He, thus, submitted that at this stage there is no scope to challenge the order appointing the hand writing expert or rejection of the prayer for re-examination of the hand writing expert.

8. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

9. Before entering into the merits of the C.O. No. 1599 of 2025, this Court has to first deal with the objection raised by the learned advocate for the opposite party against the maintainability of the