Advocates:
['BASANT KAIWARTYA', '', 'GOVIND RAM MIRI', 'B MADHAVA RAO', 'A G']

1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WP(227) No. 45 of 2018

Abdul Wahid Khan, S/o. Valayat Khan, Aged About 70 Years, R/o. Village

Lakhanpur, Tahsil Surguja, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Madhya Pradesh (now State Of Chhattisgarh), Through the

Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (defendant No. 2)

2. Ali Hussain, Aged About 69 Years,

3. Fayaz Hussain (Dead)

4. Ahmad (Dead) Through LR's :-

(a)

Saddik Hussain, S/o. Ahmad, Aged About 45 Years

(d)

Safiq Hussain, S/o. Ahmad, Aged About 38 Years

(f)

Mahboob Hussain, S/o. Ahmad, Aged About 30 Years

(d)

Abdus Hussain, S/o. Kudus, Aged About 28 Years

(e)

Abdul Hussain, S/o. Kudus, Aged About 25 Years

(f)

Ansar Hussain, S/o. Kudus, Aged About 22 Years

(g)

Sansar Hussain, S/o. Kudus, Aged About 18 Years

All by Caste Muslim, R/o. Lakhanpur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja

(C.G.).

---- Respondents

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioners

:

Mr. Govind Ram Miri, Advocate

For State

:

Mrs. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order On Board

16.01.2018

Heard

1.

This petition is against the order dated 15.12.2017 whereby an

application under Section 151 of C.P.C. has been dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute is

about the question of sale deed dated 12.05.1966 whereby the

respondent Ali Hussain though has executed the sale deed in

favour of the petitioner/defendant but the same is denied.

However, when the expert was examined since the original was

2

not before her, therefore, ambiguity in the statement of the expert

has come. He further submits that unless and until the Registrar

brings the original before the Court and examined by the hand-

writing expert, the ambiguity will remain.

3.

Perused the order dated 15.12.2017 whereby an application under

Section 151 of C.P.C. has been rejected. As also perused the

statement of the hand-writing expert Sunanda Dhenge who has

been examined as DW-8. According to her statement, the sale

deed dated 12.05.1966 has been signed by the same person who

has executed other sale deed in question. The said finding has to

be evaluated by the trial Court alongwith the other documents.

Apart from this fact, the document in question appears to be of the

year 1966 and in such circumstances Section 90 of the Evidence

Act, 1872 will come into play, which holds presumption of the

documents of 30 years old. In such circumstances, I do not find

any reason for re-opening of the case for evidence to the

defendant and in the opinion of this Court, recalling of the Sub

Registrar would be a futile exercise in view of the observation

made above.

4.

With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Goutam Bhaduri)

Judge

Ashok