PRASANTA BEHERA Vs. SUKANT @ KUNI BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 21.4.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udala in T.S. No. 13 of 2002. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application of the plaintiff to send the document identified as 'X' to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signature with the admitted signature of P.W.4.

(2.) The petitioner as plaintiff instituted T.S. No. 13 of 2002 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udala for a declaration that the defendant is not the legally married wife of the plaintiff and for certain ancillary reliefs. The case of the plaintiff is that when he was a minor, the defendant and her family members forcibly took him to Khirachora Gopinath Temple, Remuna and wanted to perform his marriage with the defendant. The priest of the temple declined to perform the marriage. The defendant and her family members managed to obtain a receipt from the temple to the effect that the marriage had been solemnised. A false receipt was obtained by Niranjan @ Jatia Rout representing himself as the father of the plaintiff, even though the father of the plaintiff was not present at the temple nor signed in the receipt.

(3.) The learned trial court rejected the plaint on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction to decide the matrimonial dispute. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed RFA No.3 of 2003 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udala. The matter was remanded to the learned trial court for fresh disposal on merit. In course of hearing, the father of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.4. He stated that the receipt marked as 'X' said to have been issued by Khirachora Gopinath Temple, Remuna did not contain his signature. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff filed an application to send the aforesaid document to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signature appearing on the receipt marked as 'X' with the admitted signature of P.W.4. No objection was filed by the defendant. By order dated 21.4.2010, learned trial court rejected the application.