Purna Chandra Das Vs Haramani Satpathy

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2025 16:41:28

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.935 of 2025

¶4

Purna Chandra Das

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Smt. Haramani Satpathy and Others

¶9

…. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate

¶10

CORAM: SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

24.7.2025

Order No.

Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the Opposite Parties who submits to have filed the power along with appearance memo before the Registry today morning.

¶16

The Defendant has approached this court in present CMP challenging order dated 15^th April, 2025 of learned 3^rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore in C.S. No.254 of 2017. The suit has been filed by present Opposite Parties with a prayer for eviction along with realization of arrear rent. By now, the evidence from both sides have been closed and the suit is posted for argument. Earlier before commencement of evidence a petition was filed in the trial court praying for verification of signature of three Plaintiffs who executed the alleged agreement dated 18^th February, 2013 (Ext.D), and the same was rejected vide order dated 13^th September, 2024 of the trial court stating that the Defendant has ample opportunity to prove his case by producing evidence with regard to the alleged payment of advance money to the Plaintiffs by the Defendant. It is to be noted here that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiffs and Defendant is not disputed.

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2025 16:41:28

¶19

After closure of the evidence from both sides another petition was filed again by the Defendant praying for handwriting examination of signatures of such Plaintiffs on the agreement under Ext.D and the same was rejected by the trial court with the observation that the earlier prayer of the Defendant in this regard was rejected and second prayer on the same issue is not entertainable.

¶20

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner (Defendant) submits that when the tenancy between the parties is admitted, the only question remains for the Defendant is regarding his claim about payment of advance money at the time of induction of the tenancy and in this regard when such Plaintiffs are denying their signature on the unregistered agreement under Ext.D, their signatures need to be ascertained through handwriting expert in order to substantiate the claim of the Defendant about payment of advance money.

¶21

Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel for Opposite Parties submits on the contrary that after rejection of same prayer of the Petitioner once by the trial court, filing of similar petition with same prayer again after conclusion of evidence from both sides is only intended to linger the suit. Moreover, the proof of signature of the parties on the alleged agreement under Ext.D would not be helpful to the Defendant for the reason that the same would not amount to proof of contents thereof. He also submits that the Defendant has not raised any claim for set off in his written statement and therefore his contention in this regard to prove the signature of the Plaintiffs on Ext.D would be a futile exercise.

¶22

A copy of the agreement under Ext.D is produced in course of hearing before this court. Admittedly in the suit for eviction the factum of tenancy of the Defendant under the Plaintiffs is not disputed

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2025 16:41:28

¶26

and the execution of agreement under Ext.D is disputed by the Plaintiffs. Both parties have led their respective evidences in the matter of eviction and payment of rent. To assume, even if it is accepted that Ext.D is genuine then also the contents of such document cannot be accepted as such because law is settled on the point that proof of signature of a party on a document does not ipso facto prove the contents thereof. The contents of a document have to be proved by way of independent evidence brought on record. When the Defendant has not claimed for any set-off with regard to his payment of alleged advance money then the purpose of proof of signature of the rival party on Ext.D has become redundant for the reason that it would not establish the contents of the document that Defendant has given such amount to the Plaintiffs.

¶27

Apart from above, the Defendant has lost his scope to challenge the direction of the learned trial court at the first instance, i.e. vide order dated 13^th September, 2024 when his prayer was rejected for the first time. After he was allowed to lead his complete evidence in the suit his prayer on the same issue to send the document for handwriting expert examination would no more be helpful to him in deciding his contentions, rather to linger the proceeding.

¶28

For all such reasons stated above, no infirmity is seen in the impugned order of learned trial court to interfere with the same. Accordingly the CMP is dismissed.

¶29

( B.P. Routray)

¶30

Judge

¶31

M.K.Panda

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Purna Chandra Das v. Haramani Satpathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purna Chandra Das v. Haramani Satpathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Regulated Market Committee, Rairangpur Vs M/S. Shree Ram Consultancy, Bbsr

Narmada Choudhuri Vs B.D.A.

Abhimanyu Behera Vs Narana Majhi

Madhusudan Nanda Vs a.S.,Pharmacy

Mahendra Kumar Pandey Vs Phulendra Pandey

M/S Patra Electronic Vs State and Ors.