SOURENDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA Vs. RABINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the orders dated April 27, 2009 and June 30, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.360 of 2000 thereby rejecting the prayer for appointment of a handwriting expert and also a prayer for review of the earlier order.

(2.) The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted the Title Suit No.360 of 2000 praying for a decree of recovery of possession from a licensee after cancelling the licence. In that suit, the 2 petitioners appeared and they are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement and also by making a counter-claim that they and the plaintiff are the joint owners in respect of the property in suit, as described in the schedule of the plaint. The said suit was at the stage of recording evidence and the plaintiff tendered his evidence. During the cross-examination of the P.W.1, certain letters were tendered to the witness and the P.W.1 stated that those letters were not written by him and those does not bear his signature. In that situation, the petitioners filed an application for appointment of a handwriting expert contending, inter alia, that the signature of the P.W.1 should be taken both in English and Bengali on some papers and such signature and the disputed signatures should be sent to a handwriting expert for verification. By the first order dated April 27, 2009, the learned Trial judge dismissed the application for appointment of a handwriting expert and by the second order dated June 30, 2009, the learned Trial Judge rejected the application for review of the said order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now the question is whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned orders.

(3.) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the questioned documents are nothing but 7 private letters alleged to have been written by the P.W.1. Those documents are not the germane in the 3 suit. They do not create any title or waive of any right with regard to the suit property by either of the parties but only some personal letters written by the writer of those letters. Since those documents have no bearing with the suit, the learned Trial Judge rejected the same.