PRADIP KUMAR BATABYAL Vs. PRATIMA BATABYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against the order Nos. 13, 14 and 15 dated 28th May, 1983, 2nd June, 1983 and 3rd June, -. 1983 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Alipore, in Title Suit No. 6 3 of 1983 filed by the opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 against the petitioner and tire proforma opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 inter-alia, for declaration that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 436 of 1980 of the said Court was obtained by fraud and collusion and also for permanent injunction. In the said Title Suit No. 6 3 of 1983 the summons upon the defendants therein including the petitioner was served under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was accepted by the court as valid service. Thereafter the petitioner and the proforma opposite party No. 5 filed an application praying for time to file written statement. The learned Munsif by the order No. 13 dated 28th May, 1983 disallowed the said prayer of the petitioner and the proforma apposite party No. 5 inter alia, on the ground that they had not entered appearance in the suit through any learned Advocate. Subsequently a Vakalatnama was filed by the petitioner in the said suit but as the Court doubted regarding the genuineness of the signature of the petitioner on the said Vakalatnama,. the court by its order No. 14 dated 2. 6. 83 called for records of the previous title Suit No. 4. 36 of 1980. Subsequently, by the Order No. 15 dated 3rd June, 1983 the Court after comparing the signatures of the petitioner on the Vakalatnama filed in Title Suit No. 6 3 of 1983 with the admitted signature of the petitioner in Title Suit No. 436 of 1980 became suspeious about the genuineness of the signature of the petitioner on the Vakalatnama filed in Title Suit No. 6 3 of 1983 and asked the petitioner to appear before the Court to put his signature in presence of the Court. The petitioner had challenged in this present rule all the aforesaid three orders.

(2.) MR. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the impugned order specially order No. 15 dated 3rd June, 1983 suffers from material irregularity as there was no sufficient ground for forcing the attendance of the petitioner before the Court for the purpose of taking his signature for comparison.-

(3.) MR. Matilal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties however, contends that the impugned orders are quite legal and valid and under Order 3 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court can direct the appearance of the party in person in court for the purpose of signing or writing in presence of the Court for comparison of the said hand-writing with the disputed signature of hand-writing of the person. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties in my view, court can direct the party to appear in Court in person when need arises. In this regard reference may be made to the decision the, Andhra Pradesh High Court.