SNEHASISH DATTA Vs. AYAN KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been filed by the plaintiff in Title Suit No.983 of 2016, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 3rd Court at Alipore, district 24-Parganas (South). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated September 20, 2022 passed by the learned Court below. By the order impugned, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application after arguments had commenced and was near completion, praying for appointment of a hand writing expert to compare the admitted signature of the plaintiff in the vakalatnama with the signatures on the rent receipt, namely, Exhibit A, A1, B1 and, B2 filed by the DW-1 and DW-2 respectively, in order to ascertain whether they were identical or whether any interpolation had been made. The defendant filed an objection to the said application. The said application came up for hearing along with the objection on September 20, 2022, before the learned Court below. The application was rejected with reasons.

(3.) The learned Court below found that the application was filed at a belated stage, almost at the closure of argument, only to fill up the lacunae in the plaint case. The defence case was that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the suit property and rent receipts were exhibited in support of such claim. Elaborate cross-examinations were conducted by the plaintiff. At the relevant point of time, no prayer had been made for appointment of a hand writing expert. The DW-2, who also claimed to be a tenant in another portion of the building in which the suit property is housed, deposed and tendered rent receipts which were marked as Exhibits B1 and B2. At the relevant point of time also, no application was made for appointment of a hand writing expert. At a belated stage, when the arguments were almost closed, the application for appointment of a hand writing expert was filed. The learned trial court found such application to be an afterthought and an attempt to fill up the lacunae in the plaint case. Thus, the application was rejected without any cost. Learned Court below fixed the suit for reply of the plaintiff and for filing of written arguments by the parties, if any.