Allowed

Prajapati Pandit v. Jiban Krishna Jana & Ors.

Calcutta HC10 Mar 2022CO/558/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revisional petition holding that the lower court erred in denying the petitioner an opportunity to examine his signature against that on a disputed binanama via a handwriting expert under Section 45 Indian Evidence Act, despite the lower court's view that such evidence was time-consuming and valueless.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.01.2020 under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. set aside; revisional application disposed of.

Prajapati Pandit Vs Jiban Krishna Jana & Ors. — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

36 10-03-2022 AKG Ct.21

¶2

C.O. 558 of 2020 Prajapati Pandit Versus Jiban Krishna Jana & Ors.

¶3

Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das …for the Petitioner

¶4

None appears on behalf of the opposite parties, though from where order dated 19.03.2021, it appears that copy of the revisional application was handed over to Mr. Manoranjan Jana, who appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.

¶5

The revisional application is taken up hearing.

¶6

The plaintiff being aggrieved by the order of revisional application of his application under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. dated 20.01.2020 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakdwip, South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 216 of 2016 on 30.01.2020 has preferred the present revisional application.

¶7

Perused the impugned order, from where it is seen that the plaintiff challenging the signature appearing on registered binanama alleged to have been executed by him has filed the application under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for sending his admitted signature along with the said binanama to a handwriting expert cannot be conclusive as it is

¶8

¶9

opinion evidence and has taken a view that since disputed binanama dated 05.05.1993 contains signature of attesting witnesses and if the plaintiff had not executed the binanama then he would get opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses being adduced by the defendant. If the defendant fails to cross-examine those witnesses whose names appeared in the binanama then plaintiff can produce those witnesses from his side to prove that the binanama is fake and fictitious one. It has also taken a view after the examination of the witnesses from both sides, it would be clear about the genuineness of the disputed binanama. That procedure of sending the signature to the handwriting expert is a time consuming one and held that evidence of handwriting expert is not valuable evidence.

¶10

This Court is of the view that if the plaintiff denies executing the binanama and denies the signature appearing on the same is not that of his. Then, opportunity should be given to him to get the disputed signature examined by an expert with his admitted signature and which the learned Court below has denied. It appears that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order by overlooking the provision of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶11

This Court holds that the impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality is liable to be set aside.

¶12

¶13

Accordingly, the revisional application being C.O. 558 of 2020 is disposed of.

¶14

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

Parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶16

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.

¶17

(Kesang Doma Bhutia, J.)

Prajapati Pandit v. Jiban Krishna Jana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prajapati Pandit v. Jiban Krishna Jana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tasmith Jewellers Vs Voylla Fashions Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Clyde Stores Pvt. Ltd. Vs Arun Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Piyali Tewari Dey Vs Baidyanath Dey and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs Thakur Singh

Rajeev Shaw Vs Sambhu Nath Shaw Since Deceased Rep. by His Legal Hiers Rajshree Jaiswal and Ors.

Sk. Boldo @ Sk. Abdul Rasid Vs Morjina Begum