(1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated April 19, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Purulia in Title Suit No.121 of 2003 thereby allowing the petition of the plaintiffs dated February 17, 2005 directing the defendants to produce the original deed of gift dated October 30, 1996.
(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted a suit being Title Suit No.121 of 2003 against the petitioners for declaration of title, partition, injunction and consequential reliefs before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Purulia. THE petitioners are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. THEy have specifically contended that by a registered deed of gift dated October 30, 1996, the defendants nos.1 and 2 acquired right, title, interest and possession in the suit property. THE petitioners filed a counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for eviction of the plaintiff no.1 in respect of the room, as described in schedule 2 of the counter-claim. THEreafter, the plaintiff filed an application dated February 17, 2005 before the learned Trial Judge for directing the defendant nos.1 and 2 to file the purported original deed of gift dated October 30, 1996 for sending the same to the Directorate of Finger Print Bureau, Kolkata for comparison of the signature and for opinion whether the signatures appearing on the so-called deed of gift are the same as the signatures appearing on the money order receipt and the medical certificate. That application was allowed in part.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Probal Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, supports the judgment by describing that when a question arises whether a document was signed by a person or not, the proper course would be to obtain a report from the expert and such a procedure has been followed in the instant case. Here, two signatures of the donor are available; one on the postal money receipt and another a certificate issued by the donor in favour of his son. Those two signatures were issued long time back and so those signatures appearing on those two papers may be considered as genuine and so comparison may be held by the concerned expert. There is no wrong in the impugned order. Thus, Mr. Mukherjee supports the judgment.