1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

C.M.P. No. 74 of 2022

---

1. Wajda Khatoon

2. Nasir Khan

…

…

Plaintiff Nos. 1 & 4/Petitioners

Versus

1. Umme Aisha

…

…

Defendant/Respondent

2. Ruqaiya Khatoon

3. Md. Aslam Khan

4. Zakir Khan

….

…

Plaintiff Nos. 2, 3 & 4/Proforma Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate,

Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate

Ms. Chaitali Chaterjee Sinha, Advocate

For the Respondents

:

Order No. 04

Dated: 11.05.2022

The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

2.

The present C.M.P has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.01.2022

(Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II,

Dhanbad in Title (Partition) Suit No. 153 of 2014 whereby the petition dated

10.09.2021 (wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as 13.09.2021) filed by

the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of CPC for sending the alleged <Apsi

Bantannama= dated 20.03.2007 to the handwriting expert for examination of

disputed signatures of the petitioners put on the same, has been rejected.

3.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the

petitioners and respondents namely Ramzan Khan was the owner of the land

described in Schedule-A of the plaint. Likewise, the mother of the petitioners and

respondents namely Zahida Khatoon was the owner of the land described in

Schedule-B of the plaint. The petitioners along with the respondent nos. 2 to 4

(proforma respondents herein) preferred Title (Partition) Suit No. 153 of 2014

against the defendant /respondent no. 1 for partition of their shares in the land

in question. The contesting defendant/respondent no.1 filed written statement

stating inter-alia that the land in question was mutually partitioned between the

plaintiffs and defendant on 20.03.2007 itself. Subsequently on 17.03.2015, the

defendant/respondent no.1 filed the alleged <Apsi Bantannama= (partition

document) in the court below and thereafter the petitioners vide order dated

24.05.2016 amended the plaint to the effect that they never put their signatures

on the alleged partition document and thus their signatures made in the said

document were forged. Subsequently, on 10.09.2021, the petitioners (plaintiff

nos. 1 and 4) filed a petition for getting those signatures examined by

handwriting expert, however the learned court below rejected the said petition

2

vide impugned order dated 10.01.2022. The learned court below failed to

appreciate that after filing of the alleged partition document by the

defendant/respondent no.1, the plaintiffs prayed for making amendment in the

plaint which was allowed and the petitioners specifically inserted the statement

in the said plaint that they never put their signatures on the alleged partition

document. It is also submitted that examination of handwriting by the expert is

one of the modes of evidence and when the signatures are itself in dispute, a

party to the litigation cannot be debarred from bringing such evidence before the

court. Learned court below should have sent the admitted signatures of the

petitioners to the handwriting expert for comparison with the signatures put on

the alleged partition document. It is further submitted that evidence of both the

parties have been closed vide order dated 08.02.2022 and the petitioners have

no occasion to put evidence. If the impugned order dated 10.01.2022 passed by

the learned court below is allowed to sustain, the petitioners will be left

remediless.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials

available on record. The petitioners are aggrieved with the order dated

10.01.2022 whereby the petitioners’ prayer for sending the alleged <Apsi

Bantannama= dated 20.03.2007 to the handwriting expert so as to verify the

s