Patna High Court - Orders
Archana Mukherjee & Anr vs Madhumesh Choudhary on 18 April, 2014
Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Bench: Mungeshwar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10363 of 2013
In
C.R. 67 of 2013
======================================================
Archana Mukherjee & Anr
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Madhumesh Choudhary
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR
SAHOO
ORAL ORDER
9 18-04-2014Heard learned counsel Mr. Sajal Kumar Sinha for the petitioners and learned counsel Mr. Arshad Alam for the respondent.
2. By the impugned order dated 15.03.2013 the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Patna sent the sale deed, Ext.1, for comparison with the disputed agreement to sell on the basis of which the suit for specific performance of contract was filed being Title Suit No.478 of 2010.
3. The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 24.06.2008. The defendants-petitioners filed written statement contesting the suit alleging that the said agreement is forged and fabricated document and it was never signed by the executant Late Dr. P.K. Banerjee. During the course of hearing, the plaintiff filed Patna High Court CWJC No.10363 of 2013 (9) dt.18-04-2014 2 application for comparison of the signature of Late Dr. P.K. Banerjee on the agreement with any admitted document. The court below directed the defendants to produce any admitted document signed by Late Dr. P.K. Banerjee. When no documents were produced by the defendants, the plaintiff filed a certified copy of the registered sale deed said to have been executed by Late Dr. P.K. Banerjee for comparison with the signature on the dispute agreement. Thereafter the court below called for the register from the Registry Office. The Registry Office informed the court that the register is kept in Hard Disc of the computer and sent a C.D. and also sent a copy of the registered sale deed obtained from C.D. to the court.
4. The court below thereafter sent the sale deed for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory by the impugned order. Against that order, this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the photocopy of the sale deed was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and according to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this court and other High Courts, the signature occurring on the photocopy of a document cannot be compared with any disputed signature. In the present Patna High Court CWJC No.10363 of 2013 (9) dt.18-04-2014 3 case, the document which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, i.e. the registered sale deed is a photocopy, therefore, the same could not have been sent by the court below but without considering the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this court, the court below has sent the same.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the sale deed is not the photocopy rather it is the copy obtained from Hard Disc of the computer, therefore, the court has rightly sent the same for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the learned counsel, after sending the said document for comparison in March 2013, the Forensic Science Laboratory has already submitted the report which was received by the court on 10th September, 2013 and still today no objection has been raised by the present petitioners.
7. Perused the order passed by the court below.
8. From perusal of the order, it appears that the court below has considered this aspect of the matter that the letter was sent by the Sub-Registrar informing the court that the original registration regarding the sale deed has been contained in the Hard Disc of the office computer. The Sub-Registrar also disclosed the website of the office. The document which was obtained form the Patna High Court CWJC No.10363 of 2013 (9) dt.18-04-2014 4 Hard Disc as certified copy has been marked as Ext.1. The document has been annexed as Annexure-1/A to the writ application. It appears that it is scanned copy of the Hard Disc regarding the sale deed. Moreover, the report has already been received by the court below on 10th March, 2013, therefore, in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise the question, which is being now raised before this court at the time of final hearing of the suit, i.e. regarding the reliability or the genuineness of the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory.
9. With this observation, this writ application is dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Harish/-