IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.141 of 2017 Mathura Sahoo …. Petitioner Represented by Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate -Versus – Union of India & Others …. Opp. parties Represented by Mr. D. Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER_ 13.07.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Notice on Opp. party no.4 is treated as sufficient in view of postal tracking report. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.66 of 2010 pending before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Talcher. In the present application, he seeks to challenge the order dated 22.10.2016 passed by the Court below in rejecting his application for sending certain disputed signatures to the handwriting expert for examination. 4. All the parties have appeared and are ready to make submissions. 5. On perusal of the interim order, it reveals that the same is entirely bald and sans reasons. After considering the submissions, the Court below has stated as follows:- “A petition for comparison of signatures is not to be allowed on the drop of a hat. Only when the Court finds some suspicious in the affair, then only such petition Order No. 10. deserves favourably consideration. (Referred the decision reported in (82) 1996 C.L.T.” Regard being had to all such discussions, I do not find any plausible reason to send the signature in agreement for comparison. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.” 6. It goes without saying that when an application is filed by any party seeking a particular relief, it is for the Court to adjudicate upon the same after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned and to render its decision by citing adequate reasons. The Court below has instead referred to the aforesaid expression which this Court is unable to comprehend. 7. Assuming that the Court meant that such a petition is not to be allowed routinely, then it was incumbent upon it to say so with reference to the specific facts of the case. In other words, it was for the Court to say why it is not inclined to allow the petition. The Court below has not taken the pain to do so. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is, hence, set aside. 8. The CMP is allowed and the matter is remitted to the court below to consider the petition afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned and to pass a reasoned order as early as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. 9. The plaintiff shall produce a certified copy of this order before the trial Court on 22nd July 2026, on which date the other parties shall also appear. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Pravakar