JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER HARCHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS V/S SMT. KALJINDEER KAUR

RANCHI, India, Aug. 21 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 21:

1. Heard Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 05.12.2023, passed in Title (P) Suit No. 95 of 2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div)-I, Jamshedpur, whereby the petition dated 18.05.2023 filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order-VIII Rule-1A read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned court.

3. Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Title (Partition) Suit no. 95 of 2012 was filed by the opposite party-plaintiff against the petitioners/defendants for a preliminary decree for partition of the entire Schedule-A suit properties, according to the share of the parties, for appointment of a survey knowing pleader commissioner or any other competent person as commissioner for effecting partition of the schedule-A suit properties in terms of the preliminary decree and for final decree for partition. He submits that after institution of the suit, the petitioners/defendants pursuant to summons have appeared before the learned court and filed their respective written statements on 21.02.2024.

4. He further submits that during the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners filed petition under Order VIII, Rule 1-A read with Section 151 C.P.C. on 18.05.2023 stating there in that the Deed of Relinquishment dated 16.05.2009, executed by the Plaintiff, Kaljinder Kaur, as well as the affidavit dated 12/06/2009, and affidavit dated 18/05/2009, sworn by the plaintiff Kaljinder Kaur, have been filed and in course of cross-examination of the plaintiff Kaljinder Kaur, she has denied her signature over the Deed of Relinquishment dated 16.05.2009, as well as affidavit dated 12.06.2009, and affidavit dated 18.05.2009 and in view of that the defendants got the signature of the plaintiff, Kaljinder Kaur, over the Deed of Relinquishment dated 16.05.2009 as well as affidavit dated 12.06.2009 and affidavit dated 18.05.2009, examined by the Document Expert, Shri Rajani Kanta Das, Ex-Director of Questioned Documents Examination Bureau, C.I.D, Kolkata, West Bengal, which has been rejected by the learned court. He submits that the learned court has not considered the spirit of Order-VIII Rule-1A of the CPC in right perspective and has wrongly rejected the said petition. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Jitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the sole O.P. has opposed the prayer and submits that the proper course has not been adopted by the petitioners herein to file such petition. He submits that it is for the court to decide as to whether any expert opinion on the signature is required or not for that the petitioners were required to file a petition before the learned court, however, without following that procedure, suo motu, an expert opinion has been obtained by the petitioners and that has been tried to bring on record. On these grounds, he submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqEbHjDVN9tIEO6ADpQl6%2BhU5HqVy%2Bcq4%2B5iRr0%2F9FAlN&caseno=C.M.P./352/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010119842024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.