Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manbodh Tiwari vs Onkar Nath Misir & Ors on 22 December, 2010
Author: Prasenjit Mandal
Bench: Prasenjit Mandal
1 22.12.10
C.O. 3722 of 2010 Basudev Manbodh Tiwari VS Onkar Nath Misir & Ors.
Mr. S.P. Mukherjee, Mr. Rabi Sankar Banerjee, Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee
- For the Petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This application is at the instance of the defendant-petitioner and is directed against the order dated June 30, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court at Alipore in Title Suit being no. 15 of 1999 thereby rejecting an application for appointment of a handwriting expert to prove whether the plaintiffs executed the Power of Attorney dated April 18, 1996 or August 31, 1996.
The plaintiffs instituted the suit for eviction, damages and other reliefs against the defendants. In that suit the plaintiff has admitted the execution of the Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant no. 3 in his plaint. At the time of adducing evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff has also admitted that he executed such a Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant no. 3 but during cross- examination he has denied such contention. There is also denial on the part of the plaintiff with regard to the Deed of Lease.
This being the position, at the time of trial, the defendant-petitioner prayed for appointment of a handwriting expert for comparing the signature of the plaintiff with those of the disputed documents. That prayer of the defendant was rejected by the order impugned.
2Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff in his plaint as well as in his deposition under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure has admitted the execution of the Power of Attorney as well as signing on the draft Deed of Lease.
This being the admission of the plaintiff in his deposition during examination-in-chief that shall be taken as an admission on the part of the plaintiff and for that reason I am of the view that there is no need of appointment of a handwriting expert to compare the signature of the plaintiff in the so-called Deeds.
The learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the prayer for appointment of a handwriting expert.
With this observation, this application is disposed of.
Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be supplied to the petitioner subject to the compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Prasenjit Mandal, J.) 3 4 01.10.10 C.O. 3149 of 2010 Basudev Mr. Malay Kr. Das, Mr. Dibyajyoiti Raha
- For the Petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve notice upon the opposite party by registered post with acknowledgement due card intimating that the opposite party shall file affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks after the ensuing Puja Vacation and the reply, if any, thereto two weeks thereafter and shall file affidavit of service on the next date of hearing. The matter shall appear for hearing in the Monthly List of December, 2010 as "Contested Application".
As regards stay, upon due consideration of the materials on record, I am of the view that interim order of stay as prayed for should be granted after a limited period.
Accordingly, all the further proceeding of the Ejectment Suit pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore be stayed for a period of three months or until further order whichever is earlier.
Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Prasenjit Mandal, J.) 5 01.10.10 C.O. 3149 Basudev Mr. Malay Kr. Das, Mr. Dibyajyoiti Raha Heard learned couns Learned counsel fo serve notice upon the op with acknowledgement d opposite party shall file four weeks after the ensui if any, thereto two weeks t of service on the next dat appear for hearing in the M as "Contested Application"
As regards stay, u materials on record, I am stay as prayed for shou period.
Accordingly, all th Ejectment Suit pending (Junior Division), 2nd Co period of three months or earlier.
Urgent xerox certifie to the learned counsel for of necessary formalities.6
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 and the other opposite parties are the proforma opposite parties.
This being the position, service of notice upon the opposite party nos.
2 to 7 is dispensed with. So, service of notice is complete.
Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
This being the position, let the application shall come up for hearing under the heading "Contested Application" in the monthly list of December, 2010.
The opposite parties may file affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks after the ensuing Puja Vacation and the reply, if any, thereto two weeks thereafter.
As regards prayer for interim order of stay, it is hereby recorded that the petitioner may take loan from any third party if he desires to do so.
Urgent xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar(Court) be handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Prasenjit Mandal, J.) 7