MIGUEL NAZARETH Vs. FINESSE CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1.

(2.) The petitioner(plaintiff) challenges order dated 16.8.2016 made by the learned Trial Judge directing the petitioner to produce original receipts referred to in paragraph 2 of the application at Exh. D-60 both dated 25.11.2005 to be sent to the Government approved handwriting expert preferably to CFSL, Hyderabad.

(3.) Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the learned Trial Judge has power to seek opinion of the expert as to identity of the handwriting in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, power cannot be exercised unless, circumstances indeed warrant exercise of such power. He submits that, in the present case, the receipts have already been exhibited without any serious challenge on the part of the respondents to such exhibition. He submits that respondents are yet to commence their evidence and upon commencement, the petitioner will have opportunity to demonstrate their case with regard to forgery or manipulation by resort to cross examination. He submits that after entire evidence is recorded, if the learned Trial Judge is still of the opinion that the receipts in question are required to be referred to an hand writing expert, then, such a course may be permissible to the learned Trial Judge. However, the impugned order has been made prematurely. The impugned order apart from stating that there is dispute with regard to identity of hand writing upon the receipts, caontains no reason as to why, at this stage, the receipts need to be to referred to the handwriting expert. Mr Godinho submits that such a course will unduly protract the proceedings. He submits that the suit is for Cancellation of Sale Deed, Specific Performance Damages/ Compensation. It is the case of the petitioner that entire consideration except an amount of Rs. 16,000/- has already been paid to the respondents. For all these reasons, Mr. Godinho, submits that the impugned order be set aside, if necessary, by granting liberty to refer the dispute of the respondents to the opinion of the handwriting expert after all the oral evidence is led by the parties.