IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA ON THE 17^th OF OCTOBER, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 5631 of 2024 PUSHPLATA BARKADE Versus SURESH KUMAR PARDE Appearance:

Shri Tek Chand Lakera - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 13.07.2024 passed by the learned trial court whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC for producing the original documents has been rejected.

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent herein has filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sale permanent injunction on 16.05.2012. A written statement was filed by the defendants on 21.09.2015 denying the plaint contentions on the ground that there were no signatures of the defendants and they denied the execution of the sale deed dated 08.03.2011. The petitioner has filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC on 16.07.2015 asking for production of documents to enable him to get the signatures examined through an handwriting expert. The said application was rejected by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI trial court. Thereafter, he preferred a Miscellaneous Petition No.2887 of 2018 and the same was withdrawn on 02.07.2018. An application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act was filed by the petitioner seeking examination of the signature through handwriting expert. The said application was allowed.

It is argued that without production of the original documents, the signatures on the agreement could not have been verified, therefore, he has asked for production of the original documents i.e. the notary register. He again filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC and Order 16 Rule 1 of the CPC but the same was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 13.07.2024 which is the order impugned. It is argued that the reason for rejection by the learned trial court is that after rejection of the earlier application under Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC there are no further change circumstances, the order has attained finality, therefore, the application cannot be allowed on the earlier occasion. It is argued that if the original documents are not produced then the very purpose of allowing the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act would be futile as no signatures could have been examined by the expert without original documents.

The fact remains that on earlier occasion, the application under Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 16.07.2015 and the said order was assailed by filing a Miscellaneous Petition No.2887 of 2018 and the same was withdrawn by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI the petitioner on 02.07.2018 which is Annexure P/5. The order dated 02.07.2018 does not reflect that any liberty was granted to the petitioner to revive his prayer at a subsequent stage. Merely allowing the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act does not give any right to the petitioner to file a subsequent application under Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC again. It is the duty of the hand writing expert to get the signature examined and submit the report in pursuance to the direction passed by the learned trial court but as far as application under Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC is concerned, the same cannot be allowed again once the same has been rejected, the order has attained finality. The learned trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the applications.

This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having a limited scope of interference as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shhankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, wherein certain guidelines have been framed by the Supreme Court, which are as under:-

"The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court havi