Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omprakash vs Rajendra on 14 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1199
1 MP-4150-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 14th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 4150 of 2022
OMPRAKASH AND ANOTHER
Versus
RAJENDRA AND TWO OTHERS
Appearance:
Petitioners by Shri Mangesh Bhachawat - Advocate appearing through
Video Conferencing and Shri Sajid Iqbal Ansari - Advocate.
Respondent No.1 by Shri Rishi Agrawal - Advocate.
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners - defendants No.1 and 2 assailing impugned orders passed in deposition sheet (Annexure P/5).
2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff (herein respondent No.1) has filed a suit (RCS/298-A of 2018) claiming 1/6 th share and subsequently on the death of his mother, 1/5 th share in the disputed properties, which is pending before the Court below i.e. Principal District Judge, Mandsaur (MP).
3. During examination of Bhagwan Singh Shaktawat (DW-2), an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that when it is not alleged that the second witness of 'will' Ramesh Chandra Sharma has died or has become incompetent to depose before the Court, then his signatures cannot be proved by the other witness. This was opposed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 1/15/2026 5:38:06 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1199 2 MP-4150-2022 learned counsel for the defendants. This objection was decided by the Presiding Officer that when it has not been alleged that Ramesh Chandra Sharma has died or is not in a position to depose before the Court and learned counsel for the defendants wants to examine him as and when required, then Bhagwan Singh Shaktawat (DW-2) cannot prove the signatures of other attesting witness i.e. Ramesh Chandra Sharma.
4. After that, one more objection was taken by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that if the defendants want to examine other attesting witness of the 'will' i.e. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, who is a witness of the same fact, therefore, both of the witnesses be examined one after another and thereafter he will cross-examine the witnesses and on this ground prayed for adjourning the case. This objection was also opposed by learned counsel for the defendants on the ground that other witnesses will be examined after completion of the examination of the one witness; and for this purpose, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in case of Laxman Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 (I) MPWN 83 . This objection was also decided in favour of the plaintiff stating that if the defendants want to examine the other attesting witnesses of the 'will', then both of the witnesses be examined. The examination-in-chief of both the witnesses will be completed and thereafter they will be examined on the same day. The aforesaid adjudication of the objections gives rise to this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a person who is acquainted with the signatures of other person can prove his signatures and for this, he has drawn attention of this Court towards Section 47 of the Indian Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 1/15/2026 5:38:06 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1199 3 MP-4150-2022 Evidence Act, 1872.
6. Similarly, relying upon judgment / order delivered by this Court in case of Kishan Prasad v. M.P. Government through Collector, Vidisha reported in 1983 JLJ 474 and in case of Laxman Singh and others v. State of MP and others reported in 2007 (I) MPWN 83 , submits that it is not necessary that affidavits of all the witnesses be filed on the same day and the witnesses will be cross-examined one after the another.
7. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for setting aside the impugned orders in Annexure P/5, which are in deposition of Bhagwan Singh Shaktawat (DW-2).
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 (plaintiff) submits that the objections have been dealt with in accordance with law. There is no need to interfere in the aforesaid orders, hence prays for dismissal of the petition.
9. Heard and considered rival submissions raised at bar and perused the record as also the judgments relied upon.
10. To appreciate the controversy, relevant provision of Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is reproduced, as under: -
"47. Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant. -- When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
Explanation. - A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he had received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him."
11. In Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Ac, 1872, it has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 1/15/2026 5:38:06 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1199 4 MP-4150-2022 provided that if any person is acquainted with the signatures of other person, he can very well give his opinion on the point. Therefore, if any party wants to prove the signatures of other attesting witness by the another witness, who is acquainted with the signatures of other attesting witness, then it cannot be objected. Therefore, first objection decided by the learned Principal District Judge, Mandsaur in Annexure P/5 stating that if the defendant wishes to examine another attesting witness, then he cannot be permitted to prove his signatures by the another attesting witness, cannot be sustained.
12. Similarly, the other objection with regard to filing of examination- in-chief of both the attesting witnesses together and thereafter they will be cross examined is also not tenable, in view of the orders / judgments this Court in case of Kishan Prasad v. M.P. Government through Collector, Vidisha (supra) and in case of Laxman Singh and others v. State of MP and others (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
13. Thus, in considered view of this Court, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners have force, therefore, they are accepted.
14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders in Annexure P/5 are hereby set aside. It is also directed that the learned trial Court will proceed with the case to decide it promptly and as early as possible preferably within a period of six months.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE rcp Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 1/15/2026 5:38:06 PM