Disposed

Narendra Kumar Kateliha v. Pawan Kumar Agrawal

Chhattisgarh HC24 Nov 2024WP227/935/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against dismissal of plaintiff's application to appoint an expert to examine thumb impression on an allegedly forged sale deed. Court allowed the applications, directing specimen collection at the Sub-Registrar office with both parties present and report within 45 days; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Applications for expert examination and production of original sale deed records allowed with directions to obtain specimens and file report within 45 days.

Narendra Kumar Kateliha Vs Pawan Kumar Agrawal — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:46023

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 935 of 2023

¶6

1 - Narendra Kumar Kateliha S/o. Hari Shankar Kateliha, Aged About 55 Years R/o. Gond Para, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner/Plaintiff.

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Pawan Kumar Agrawal S/o. Late Bisenswarop Agrawal, Aged About 65 Years R/o. Behind Ratan Hotel, Near Shiv Mangal Apartment Link - Road, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Ajay Kumar Bhimnani S/o. Laxman Das Bhimnani, Aged About 37 Years R/o. Behind City Mall 36, Mangla, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent	: Shri Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Shri Karan Kumar
No.1 and 2	Baharani and Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocates.
For State	Shri Santosh Soni, GA.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

25/11/2024

¶16

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶17

2 / 3

¶18

India against the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the 9th Civil Judge Class 2, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.97A/2017 whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for appointing an Expert and also an application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC to call original records of disputed sale deed dated 22.01.1996, were dismissed.

¶19

Necessary facts of the case are that petitioner/ plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession challenging the sale dated 22.01.1996 as forged one, as some other person by impersonating himself as petitioner has executed the aforesaid sale deed. Defendants have not produced the original sale deed during the trial and the second copy is available at the registry office. The subject applications were filed to appoint an Expert for taking specimen and thumb impression for comparison and to seek the expert’s report for the proper adjudication but the same were dismissed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for complete justice between the parties, examination of the disputed documents from an Expert is necessary to unfold the truth. Therefore the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/private defendants would support the order impugned.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

¶23

Admittedly, petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the questioned sale

¶24

3 / 3

¶25

deed as a forged one and has sought thumb impression appended with the said deed to be examined by an Expert which is necessary to unfold the real truth. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the applications in question with a direction that the petitioner/plaintiff shall file suitable application before the concerned trial Court proposing name of the Expert after which, the concerned trial Court shall fix a date on which both the parties along with the concerned Expert shall remain present before the concerned Sub-Registrar Office where the said record is kept. In presence of both the parties, the Expert shall obtain the specimen of the questioned document and thereafter file his report in accordance with law within a period of 45 days after such specimen has been obtained. Ordered accordingly.

¶26

Plaintiff shall also provide his specimen before the Court concerned in presence of both the parties and shall file suitable application as to the availability of the Expert within a period of 45 days of this order.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation/direction, instant Petition is disposed of.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶30

Judge

¶31

Avinash

Narendra Kumar Kateliha v. Pawan Kumar Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Kateliha v. Pawan Kumar Agrawal

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

Smt. Rekha Yadav Vs Smt. Sushila Singh

Devraj Gond Vs Krishna Kumar Maravi

Itwari Ram Dewangan Vs Sadbhav Group Director (1) Wafiq Khan

Smt. Kasturi Thakur Vs Adhin Ram Sinha

Grihum Housing Finance Limited Vs Geeta Agrawal

Mangla Deshmukh Vs Rahul Deshmukh