GOUTAM BASU Vs. R RANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated September 4, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.1 of 2003 thereby allowing an application for appointment of a handwriting expert.

(2.) THE short question involved in the matter is whether certain portion of a petition filed before the Court was inserted afterwards in a Misc. Case No.1 of 2003 under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. It is contended that the said portion of the petition was subsequently incorporated in the petition in question. In order to decide such fact, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application for appointment of a handwriting expert. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) UPON consideration of the allegation that certain portion of a petition was inserted afterwards, the question cropped up whether the so-called portion existed there at the time of filing of the said petition. I have considered the decision of Smt. Aditi Rani Biswas v. Sri Khagendra Nath Dutta & anr. Reported 2011(1) CLJ(Cal) 540 in support of the order under challenge. Since, the learned Trial Judge has exercised his discretionary power, I am of the view that the matter does not call for any interference at all. The learned Trial Judge has passed the orders within his right and it cannot be stated that he has caused miscarriage of justice in allowing the said application.