IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT ON THE 1^st OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 MISC. PETITION No. 2339 of 2021 Between:-

RAMKISHORE SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI MEWARAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONTRACTOR R/O A-21, DAKTAR KARAMCHARI GRIH NIRMAN CREDIT SOCIETY MARYADIT, KOTRA SULTANABAD, BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI VASU WASWANI - ADVOCATE)

AND SHRI JAYNARAYAN SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI MEWARAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONTRACTOR R/O BHISHAM KUJN, KOTRA SULTANABAD, (KAMLA NAGAR), BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI - ADVOCATE)

This petition has come up for hearing on this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 13.07.2021 contained in Annexure-P/1.

Petitioner was plaintiff and respondent was defendant before the trial Court (hereinafter petitioner and respondent are referred to as "plaintiff" and "defendant").

Learned counsel appearing for plaintiff submitted that plaintiff has filed civil suit No.293-A/2014 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession. Plaintiff had filed two applications i.e. under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before trial Court which were dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.07.2021 in Civil Suit No.293-A/2014. It is submitted by counsel for plaintiff that trial Court lost sight of fact that averment is made in paragraph-6 of written statement, therefore document is material and trial Court had committed an error in rejecting the same. Trial Court also committed an error in rejecting application for examination of handwriting of defendant as he has denied the same in accounts book and same is necessary to be proved showing that property in question is purchased from joint partnership business of contractor- ship of plaintiff and defendant. In these circumstances, prayer is made for setting aside the impugned order and allowe the applications of plaintiff/petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent opposed the prayer of plaintiff and submitted that well reasoned order has been passed by trial Court. There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction, therefore, no interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Miscellaneous petition filed by plaintiff deserves to be dismissed.

Heard the counsel for defendant as well as plaintiff.

Plaintiff had filed two applications before trial Court. One application was filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for examination of handwriting of defendant on Ex-P/3 and on Panch Faisla. Learned trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that Panch Faisla is photocopy and application for taking said document on record as secondary evidence was dismissed on 06.01.2020, therefore, handwriting on photocopy cannot be compared with admitted handwriting of defendant. I do not find any error on aforesaid finding of trial Court. Said finding is in accordance with law and there is no error of jurisdiction. Second prayer is made for examination of handwriting on accounts statement of joint partnership business was rejected on ground that issue before Court is whether suit property is purchased from income of joint partnership business and issue is not regarding existence of joint partnership business, therefore, entries in register will be of no help. Accounts of joint partnership business of plaintiff and defendant contained in Register-P/3 will only show income of partnership business. Same will not go on to show that said income was used for purchased of disputed property, therefore, I do not find any error in order passed by trial Court.

Another application was filed under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking document on record. Document shows that house in qu