A T GOOYEE ENTERPRISES Vs. NAND LAL RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit inter alia for recovery of possession and mesne profits with an alternative prayer for enquiry as against the claim for mesne profits filed by a partnership firm (plaintiff) the sole defendant has applied for appointment of a handwriting expert for analysis of the signatures and writing in three documents which have been respectively marked as Exhibit-A , B and E (later two with objection from the defendant) through the plaintiff's first witness. The application has been made by the defendant at a stage when the defendant has already put about 170 questions in cross-examination to the said first witness of the plaintiff.

(2.) The defendant says that the signatures of Manoj and Manish Jaiswal in Exhibit-A are real signatures. By referring to the style and nature of signatures of Manoj and Manish in Exhibit-B and E further says that on a comparison of their signatures in Exhibit-B and E with those in Exhibit-A the signatures are different and the same appears so even to naked eye. The defendant wants the genuineness of the signatures of Manish and Manoj Jaiswal contained in the said three documents be ascertained by hand writing expert taking Exhibit-A1 and A2 being the signatures of Manish and Manoj Jaiswal contained in Exhibit-A to be the genuine signatures of Manish and Manoj Jaiswal. The defendant says that this is necessary as the name of the plaintiff is mentioned as A. T. Goyee Enterprise, the original plaintiff in Exhibit-A while it is A. T. Gooyee Enterprise in Exhibit-B and E.

(3.) The defendant draws support for his claim for appointment of a handwriting expert in the said matter from the judgments reported in ( Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. The State of Bombay , 1957 AIR(SC) 857) [paragraph 11], ( Narayan Mukherjee vs. Krishna Dey , 1996 2 CalLT 28 (HC)) [paragraph 10] and ( Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan , 2012 12 SCC 406) [paragraph 24, 26, 27 and 28].