VANISHA DUTTA Vs. SAROJNI DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two revision petitions challenging two orders arising from the proceedings in the same suit. The first revision petition i.e., CR-3866-2019 titled as "Vanisha Dutta Versus Sarojni Dutta" has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 31/1/2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Ferozepur, vide which the application filed by the petitioner for grant of permission to examine handwriting and finger print expert to take photographs of signature of Pushpa Rani Dutta on various documents has been dismissed. The second revision petition i.e., CR-5083-2019 titled as "Vanisha Dutta Versus Sarojni Dutta" has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the subsequent order dated 02. 07.2019 passed by the trial Court in the same suit vide which another application dtd. 18/4/2019 for grant of permission to handwriting and finger print expert to take the photographs of signatures of Pushpa Rani Dutta on various documents has been dismissed. ARGUMENTS ON BEHAL FOF THE PETITIONER

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the suit was filed by the petitioner Vanisha Dutta for declaration with respect to the property of Pushpa Rani Dutta and in the said suit, it was stated that the Wills dtd. 12/2/1998 and 19/4/2001 executed by the said Pushpa Rani Dutta in favour of the respondent-defendant were executed under undue influence. It is submitted that the petitioner had relied upon a letter written in the year 2002 by the said Pushpa Rani Dutta to the father of the petitioner disclosing the fact that there was undue influence in executing the Wills. It is submitted that the said letter is very necessary to be proved for the purpose of proving the plea raised by the petitioner of undue influence in the suit. It is submitted that for the said reason, the application (Annexure P-5 in CR-3866-2019) was filed for grant of permission to Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert to take photographs of signatures of Pushpa Rani Dutta on the two Wills so that the same could be compared with the signatures on the said letter mark P-1. It is submitted that the said application has been wrongly rejected vide impugned order dtd. 31/1/2019 without considering the fact that the comparison on the signatures is very necessary in the present case to establish the plea of undue influence.

(3.) It is further submitted that subsequent to the passing of order dtd. 31/1/2019, the respondent had moved an application for placing on record the certified copy of plaint titled as "Vanisha Dutta vs. Vijay Dutta etc." and the said application for additional evidence was allowed on 1/4/2019 and thereafter the petitioner again moved the same application, for grant of permission to Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert to take photographs of signatures of Pushpa Rani Dutta on the two Wills and the letter Mark P-1. It is submitted that since additional evidence had been allowed, thus, fresh cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner and thus, the said application had to be allowed but the same has been wrongly rejected by the trial Court vide order dtd. 2/7/2019. It is submitted that the first order dtd. 31/1/2019 has been challenged in CR3866-2019 and the second order dtd. 2/7/2019 has been challenged in CR-5083-2019. It is prayed that both the revision petitions be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside and the applications filed by the petitioner be allowed. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT