Allowed

Abdul Gaffar Khan Khokhar v. Mohammed Raza @ Munna Miyan (Since Dead) through Legal Heirs-

Chhattisgarh HC19 Nov 2024WP227/258/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenges the rejection of a handwriting expert examination application in a specific performance suit. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the trial court to permit the expert examination after the petitioner pays costs, deeming the denial of signature necessitating such proof.

What did the court decide?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's petition and directed the trial court to permit the handwriting expert examination after the petitioner deposits Rs.5000/- costs within 10 days.

Abdul Gaffar Khan Khokhar Vs Mohammed Raza @ Munna… — Specific Performance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:45282

NAFR

AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2024.11.21 17:11:27 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WP227 No. 258 of 2023

¶7

Abdul Gaffar Khan Khokhar S/o Dr. Mohammaed Saied Khan Khokhar Aged About 41 Years R/o 4 Khokhar Lane, Infront Of Mission Hospital, Bilaspur, Tahsil And DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner.

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Mohammed Raza @ Munna Miyan (Since Dead) Through Legal Heirs- Nill

¶10

1.1 - (A) Mohammed Naem Mansuri @ Motu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Tikarkala, Post Office Pendra Road, District - Gaurella- Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

1.2 - (B) Bano Begum W/o Late Mohammed Raza @ Munna Miyan Aged About 83 Years R/o Bharripara, Ward No. 14, Pendra, District - Gaurella- Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

1.3 - (C) Mohammed Shahid Mansuri Miyan Aged About 60 Years R/o Pendra, Ward No.14, District - GaurellaPendraMarwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶13

1.4 - (D) Mobin Miyan S/o Mohammed Raza @ Munna Miyan Aged About 61 Years R/o Ward No. 21 Bus Stand Near F C I Godown, Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

1.5 - (E) Mohammed Miyan S/o Mohammed Raza Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Kali Mandir Road Manendragarh, Distrcit Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

1.6 - (F) Mansuri Miyan S/o Late Mohammed Raza Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 14 Bangali Basti, Post Office Manendragarh, Distrcit Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

1.7 - (G) Smt. Akhatari Begum D/o Late Mohammed Raza Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Tikarkala, Ward No. 13 Pendra Road, District - Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattsigarh.

¶17

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Bilaspur (CG)

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1	:	Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu and Ms. Deblina Maity,
(A) to 1 (G)		Advocates, respectively.
For Res No.2/State	:	Mr. S. K. Puriya, Panel Lawyer.

¶20

2 / 3

¶21

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Order On Board

¶22

20.11.2024

¶23

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pendra Road in Civil Suit No.7-A/2016, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner for permission to examine the disputed signature by the hand writing expert, has been rejected.

¶24

Necessary facts of the case are that the original defendant Moohammed Raza @ Munna Miyan had entered into an original agreement to sale with the plaintiff and when he failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement to sale in the year 2016. The defendant denied the averments made in the plaint and also denied the signature in the said agreement. After closing of the plaintiff’s evidence, in January, 2023, the plaintiff moved the subject application to prove the signature on the agreement and also to examine the handwriting expert. However, the said application has been rejected by the trial Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the defendant has denied the signature in the agreement to sale, examination by the handwriting expert is necessary to unfold the real truth. However, the trial Court only on the ground of delay rejected the said application, which is unjustifiable, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same deserves to be set-aside.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioner.

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

Having regard to the nature of dispute and considering the fact that the defendant in the written submission denied his signature on the questioned agreement and also keeping in the view the delay in filing such application, this Court is of the view that for fair and complete adjudication of the case, the subject application can be allowed with cost.

¶29

Accordingly, the application of the plaintiff is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- before the concerned trial Court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶30

After deposition of cost, the concerned trial Court shall permit the plaintiff to call for a hand writing expert to compare and examine the disputed signature with the specimen signature of the deceased. In this regard, the plaintiff shall make suitable arrangement for presence of the expert within a further period of 15 days. Thereafter, the plaintiff shall submit the report of the expert within a period of 21 days. After such proceedings, the concerned Court shall fix the date of examination of the handwriting expert within a further period of 21 days.

¶31

After receipt of the cost, the same shall be paid to the defendants through their lawyer. It is also made clear that if the plaintiff fails to deposit the cost within the stipulated period, this order shall lose its efficacy

¶32

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands allowed .

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶35

Ajay

Abdul Gaffar Khan Khokhar v. Mohammed Raza @ Munna Miyan (Since Dead) through Legal Heirs-

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Gaffar Khan Khokhar v. Mohammed Raza @ Munna Miyan (Since Dead) through Legal Heirs-

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Texcel Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Priyanshu Raut Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Neha Purohit Vs Krishna Dave

Amitap Shrivastav Vs Smt. Laxmi Shrivastav (Ramtake)

Suresh Meshram Vs Mukund Bansod

R. K. Industries Vs Balkrishna Dani