JAY PRAKASH SINHA Vs. AISHWARYA DEVI RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The suit is of the year 1990. The petitioner is aggrieved by orders, dtd. 19/2/2018 and 9/4/2018, passed by learned Munsif, Bihar Sharif, in Title Suit No. 68 of 1990, filed for specific performance, by which the prayer of the petitioner for verification/examination of the signature of the original defendant no. 1, Late Sushil Kumar Rastogi, on the agreement for sale, through an expert has been dismissed on the ground that the same have been made in order to delay the disposal of the suit.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order. It appears that the suit has been filed in the year 1990. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. On 8/11/2017, a petition was filed by the petitioner for verification/examination of the signature of the original defendant no. 1, Late Sushil Kumar Rastogi, put by him on the agreement for sale with the signature of Sushil Kumar Rastogi upon the sale deed marked as Exhibits 3 and 4. From the impugned order, dtd. 19/2/2018, it appears that the original defendant no. 1, Late Sushil Kumar Rastogi, was examined as defendant witness and he was cross-examined on 5/8/2000, in which he had categorically stated that the said agreement for sale, dtd. 5/8/1989, has not been executed by him. It further appears that on 5/8/2002, the signature of the original defendant no. 1, Late Sushil Kumar Rastogi, was taken in front of the Sheristedar for the purpose of its examination through expert, but no further step was taken on the part of the plaintiff for about fifteen years and after lapse of fifteen years, on 8/11/2017, a petition has been filed for verification of the signature through expert. It further appears that the suit was remanded by the appellate court and after the remand, some of the witnesses were examined and cross-examined and some documents were also exhibited and the argument of the defendant was heard in part, but on that point also, no step was taken by the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court, after taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, has come to the conclusion that the petition, dtd. 8/11/2017, was filed for examination of the signature through expert with an intention to delay the disposal of the suit inasmuch as the suit is on the verge of final disposal. Accordingly, the aforesaid petition was rejected by the learned Trial Court by the impugned order, dtd. 19/2/2018.