Gujarat High Court
Chakubhai Bhavanbhai Vora & vs Muktaben Panchabhai Vora & on 21 August, 2015
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
C/SCA/2261/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2261 of 2013
==========================================================
CHAKUBHAI BHAVANBHAI VORA & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
MUKTABEN PANCHABHAI VORA & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDEEP N BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
MS TRUSHA K PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 21/08/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sandeep N.Bhatt for the petitioners and learned advocate Ms.Trusha K.Patel for the respondents. Before deciding the matter on its merits, it is to be recorded that in compliance of order dated 21.7.2015, original petitioner no.2 herein has remained present before the Court and it is conveyed by learned advocate Mr.Bhatt that he has brought original sale-deed with him, but they apprehend that if original sale-deed is parted with, then, somebody may damage or destroy it or may commit some mischief with such original document. It is also submitted that when original plaintiff - respondent has failed in Exh.5, they have no right to restrain from taking legal advantage of such document by seeking advances from the financial institutions or even to sell the property.
2. However, at present, we are concerned with the impugned orders dated 12.12.2012 below Exhs.50 and 51 in R.C.S. no.254 of 2010 pending before the Principal Civil Judge, Padadhari. By order below Exh.50, the trial Court has allowed an application filed by the original plaintiff to call for the specimen signature of the concerned defendant, Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Thu Aug 27 00:56:39 IST 2015 C/SCA/2261/2013 ORDER who is now no more, from his bank account so as to compare it with the disputed sale-deed. Therefore, though, learned advocate Mr.Bhatt has submitted that bank is not liable to part with any such information to anybody else except the account holder, there is no substance in the Special Civil Application so far as it is challenging such order concerned, for the simple reason that when disputed signature of the sale-deed is required to be examined with any admitted signature and when the concerned person is now no more, and thereby, when his admitted signatures are available on bank's record, Court has ample power to call for any documents from any authority, and therefore, there is no substance in the petition so far as it is challenging the impugned order below Exh.50.
2. So far as impugned order below Exh.51 is concerned, the trial Court has directed the present petitioner being defendant no.2 to produce original sale-deed dated 4.12.2000 before the Court so as to enable the Court to send it for examination by handwriting expert or FSL to verify that whether signatures upon such documents are genuine or not. Learned advocate Mr.Bhatt has submitted that deceased and executor of such sale- deed were making different signatures at different places. Therefore, there is no sense or reason to verify such signatures on other documents i.e. form for opening account with the bank or any other documents. It is further submitted that if such sale-deed is produced on record, their valuable right to get advances and to deal with such papers according to their will, will be hampered. However, the fact remains that when there is a serious allegation against execution of such sale-deed and when there is a need to verify that whether such sale-deed is properly executed by the proper persons whose names are shown in such documents as its signatories, it is necessary to produce such document on record for verification by the Court itself and in turn if either Court or litigant desire Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Thu Aug 27 00:56:39 IST 2015 C/SCA/2261/2013 ORDER to get the signatures verified by handwriting expert, then, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order so as to call for the original document.
3. At the most, the grievance of the petitioners regarding safe custody and completion of trial at the earliest is concerned, there may be certain directions to the trial Court.
4. In view of above facts and circumstances, after hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, when there is no substance in the Special Civil Application, it needs to be dismissed. However, considering the apprehension of the petitioners, which is recorded herein above, the trial Court is directed as under:-
a. as and when concerned defendant produces the original document in compliance of order below Exh.51, the trial Court shall keep such document in safe custody of the Nazir in a sealed cover and it should not be opened in absence of either of the party before the Court. However, the trial Court is free to send such document for examination by handwriting expert, but in that case also, trial Court shall pass appropriate orders to safeguard the custody and nature of such documents;
b. the trial Court shall call upon the handwriting expert or FSL to furnish their report in stipulated time period irrespective of their workload; c. the trial Court shall, if called for, provide a copy with endorsement that original document is in its custody to the litigant who has produced it after the report of the handwriting expert is received from the Court; d. the litigant shall use such document for any other purpose, which he has anticipated;
e. the trial Court shall decide the suit preferably within six months irrespective of right to adduce evidence of particular litigant, the trial Court shall at first instance record the evidence regarding this document and once this document is taken on record in accordance with law, the original sale-deed may be handed over back to the concerned litigant after keeping its certified copy on record.
5. It is made clear that observation in this judgment is only for the limited purpose of deciding this Special Civil Application and trial Court is free to decide the suit in accordance with law without being influence by this order.
Page 3 of 4HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu Aug 27 00:56:39 IST 2015 C/SCA/2261/2013 ORDER (S.G.SHAH, J.) binoy Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Thu Aug 27 00:56:39 IST 2015