ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Challenge in this petition is to an order passed below Exh.144 dated 17.03.2022 whereby defendant prayed for sending documents at Exh.104, 105 and 106 being Banachiththi and Vouchers / money receipts for verification of signature through hand writing expert from Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, ‘FSL’), which came to be rejected by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sanand. Over and above that vide Exh.154, the petitioners-defendants prayed for review of an order passed below Exh.144 by the said Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (herein after referred to as ‘Code’) which also came to be rejected by an order dated 22.04.2022. Both these orders are under challenge in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The Respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2017 (old Special Civil Suit No.150 of 1995) before the learned Principal Senior Civil Court, Sanand seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 9.3.1995 claimed to have been executed by the petitioner No.2 - defendant No.2 and deceased Chhotalal Bhaichand Panchal. Permanent injunction was also sought for in the suit restraining the petitioners - defendants or their persons, agents, Power of Attorneys, Representatives, etc. not to transfer, sale, assign, let, sub-let, lease in whatsoever manner the lands bearing Survey Nos.324, 325, 336, 328, 329, 330, 332 and 340 of Mouje: Sanand, Taluka: Sanand, District:

Ahmedabad.

3. Mr.Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate for Mr.D.S.Sankhesara, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that from the stage of written statement, the petitioners – defendants have claimed that the document based on which decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell is asked for are not bearing their signatures and it bears forged signatures of them. Not only that the plaintiff as also his witnesses have been sufficiently cross examined in that respect. It is further submitted that though xerox copy of such documents were produced after filing of the suit, while evidence was being led by the plaintiff in the year 2015, notarized copy of the said agreement came to be produced, which was objected to by the petitioners-defendants, and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to produce original document on 4.7.2016 for the first time before the Court. He has further submitted that not only since the filing of written statement, the said plea is raised about the documents being forged not bearing signatures of the petitioners- defendants but they have also obtained opinion of the hand writing expert in respect of signatures over the same and it supports the defence of the petitioners- defendants. He has further submitted that it is only with a view to see that there may not be an argument from the plaintiffs that the opinion obtained from the private hand writing expert is obtained by them and therefore, it may be biased one, the petitioners – defendants would like to have opinion of a Government hand writing expert through ‘FSL’ so that it cannot be disputed by the either side. It is further submitted that it would be in the interest of the respondent No.1 – plaintiff, if at all, the opinion of the expert goes against the petitioners- defendants and therefore, there is nothing to object to the same. It is further submitted that the vehemence with which this examination is objected to speaks for itself that the respondents-plaintiffs are not sure that signatures over the documents are that of the petitioners – defendants or not.

3.1 It is further submitted that merely because no criminal case is filed against the respondents-plaintiffs on finding the documents which are sought to be produced and based on which decree is sought for specific performance may not lead to conclusion that it can never by requested to the Court to send the same for the purpose of examination through the expert of the Government.

3.2 He has further sub