SMTI PURNIMA DAS Vs. SMTI REEMA BRAHMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. R. S. Deuri, the learned counsel for the petitioner. As against the sole respondent vide order dated 01.04.2016, notice was deemed to be served. However, none has entered appearance on behalf of the sole respondent while taking up this application for its disposal.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant in Money Suit No. 43/2013 instituted by the plaintiff/respondent and pending in the Court of learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. The suit proceeded on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the claim of the plaintiff/respondent is with respect to a particular amount purportedly borrowed by the defendant/petitioner. Subsequent thereto money receipt was issued by the defendant/petitioner and also an agreement was executed by the defendant/petitioner both being under the custody of the plaintiff/respondent. The said claim of the plaintiff/respondent was denied by the defendant/petitioner and denied her signatures in the purported money receipt and the agreement. At the evidence stage of the plaintiff side, the defendant/petitioner filed petition No. 195/2014 dated 09.07.2014 under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of the CPC with a prayer to send the signatures purportedly put by the defendant/petitioner to the FSL, Kahilipara for an expert opinion thereof. The suit was at the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses and the court below in order to decide the said application of the defendant/petitioner deferred the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses.

(3.) Vide order dated 31.10.2014 the said petition under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of the CPC was allowed. While passing the said order the learned court below held that in its opinion, examination of the said signatures by expert by way of scientific investigation would help in determining the question of controversy between the parties to the suit. The defendant/petitioner was directed to deposit the requisite cost for sending the signatures alongwith the agreement to the FSL, Kahilipara. On 12.12.2014, the defendant/petitioner was personally present before the court and put her admitted signatures which were kept with the case record until further order. On 07.02.2015 as per the direction of the court below the plaintiff/respondent submitted the original money receipt alongwith the original deed of agreement bearing No.4313/2010 for the purpose of sending the same to the FSL, Kahilipara. The suit was fixed for the report from FSL on 03.03.2015. On 03.03.2015 and 21.03.2015, the Presiding Officer of the Court below was on leave. On 20.04.2015, the defendant/petitioner was directed to take steps within 3(three) days for sending the agreement, money receipt and the admitted signatures alongwith the cost to the FSL, Kahilipara. On the next date fixed i.e. 24.04.2015 the court observed that the defendant/petitioner was given opportunities to take steps for sending the samples of signatures to FSL and instead the defendant/petitioner failed to take any steps. Considering the delay caused by the defendant/petitioner in taking steps the defendant/petitioner was debarred from taking steps for sending the samples of the signatures to FSL, Kahilipara. Thereafter, the suit was fixed for cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff side fixing 19.05.2015.