SAUKAT ALI Vs. STHITI ORAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, earned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the private respondents.

(2.) THE order dated 9.7.2004 passed by Sub -Judge -VII, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 30/1997 is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner. By the aforesaid impugned order, the learned Trial Court has refused the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner to send Ext. -A/2 and Ext. -C produced by the defendant to the handwriting expert to examine as to whether the aforesaid two documents are interpolated or are tampered.

(3.) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioner, during the trial, six witnesses were examined by the plaintiff and several documents were adduced in evidence which were marked as Ext. as Exts. 1 to 16 including the certified copy of the Registered Deed No. 3506 dated 2.6.1961 on the strength of which, the defendants claimed to have purchased the property after obtaining permission under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. The said document was marked as Ext. 14. The certified copy of the order granting permission under Section 46 of the CNT Act was filed on behalf of the defendant and was marked as Ext. -A/1.