ARUN KUMAR CHATURVEDI Vs. NAVAL KISHORE MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing the orders dtd. 17/10/2022 and 13/01/2023 passed by Fourth Additional Judge, Rewa to the Court of First Civil Judge Junior Division, Rewa, whereby application filed under Sec. 151 CPC seeking permission to file reply to counter suit as well as application filed under Sec. 45 of Evidence Act has been rejected.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.1 along with his father late Indrabhanram has filed Civil Suit for declaration and partition against the defendants, wherein a counter suit has been filed by defendant No.1, which is still pending for evidence of plaintiff before the Trial Court. During the pendency of the suit, in the year 2002 plaintiff No.1 expired. Plaintiff No.2 has produced the Vasiyatnama executed in the year 2000 pointing out that he is entitled for share part of Indrabhanram by the said Will. Thereafter, he was impleaded as legal representative. Reply to the counter suit has been filed by mother of petitioner along with her sister i.e. plaintiff No.2 and 3 on 24/06/2015 in support of plaintiff No.2. During the pendency of the suit on 18/03/2022, mother of the petitioners expired on 17/06/2022 and thereafter false and concocted application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was filed on behalf of the petitioners along with an urgent hearing application. After the aforesaid fact came to knowledge of the petitioner, he appeared before the Trial Court by engaging another counsel and filed reply to counter suit along with application under Sec. 151 of CPC seeking permission to take reply on record. It is his case that by preparing forged and fabricated signatures, such written statement has been filed supporting the case of the plaintiffs. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court vide impugned order for the reason that on earlier occasion written statement has already been filed and subsequent written statement could not have been filed withdrawing the first one. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Sec. 45 of Evidence Act seeking verification of the signatures from the forensic / handwriting expert.

(3.) It is argued that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for rejecting both the applications are per se illegal. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that a specific stand has been taken by the petitioner that his signatures have been forged and fabricated and thereafter affidavits have been filed in the Court. It is further argued that application under Sec. 45 of Evidence Act for examination of signatures by hand writing expert should have been allowed by the Trial Court but the said application has also been rejected. The same is not permissible under the law. Therefore, present petition has been filed.