Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010106632025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/219/2025 MD ABU HUSSAIN AND 2 ORS. S/O LATE ALOM MIYA @ ALAM MIYA HUSSAIN, R/O MAIN ROAD, WARD NO. 4, BONGAIGAON TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- BONGAIGAON, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783380 2: MD. NUR HUSSAIN S/O LATE ALAM BEPARI R/O MAIN ROAD WARD NO. 4 BONGAIGAON TOWN P.O. AND P.S.- BONGAIGAON DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783380 3.1: MUSTT. HASINA BEGUM W/O LATE GUL MOHAMMAD R/O MAIN ROAD WARD NO. 4 BONGAIGAON TOWN P.O. AND P.S.- BONGAIGAON DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783380 3.2: MD. AMAN HUSSAIN S/O LATE GUL MOHAMMAD R/O MAIN ROAD WARD NO. 4 BONGAIGAON TOWN P.O. AND P.S.- BONGAIGAON DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-78338 Page No.# 2/4 VERSUS SMTI. SANTOSH DEVI SHARMA W/O SHRI GAURI SHANKAR SHARMA, R/O MAIN ROAD, WARD NO. 4, BONGAIGAON TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- BONGAIGAON, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783380 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SATTAR, MR. S K SINGH,S CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 18.06.2025 Heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 17.02.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bongaigaon (trial court hereinafter), in Misc. (J) Case No. 89/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 08/2018. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 17.02.2025, the learned trial court had allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein, under Section 39 of the BNS read with Section 151 of the CPC for sending the signatures of the petitioners herein Nos. 1 & 2 and the signature of the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners Nos. 3(i) & 3(ii) as contained in Exhibit – 1 and Exhibits – A-T along with their respective specimen signatures for expert opinion at FSL, Guwahati. 4. Mr. Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein, as plaintiffs, had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 08/2018, for eviction of the respondent herein from the tenanted premises and that in the said Page No.# 3/4 title suit, the respondent herein entered appearance by filing written statement cum counter claim. Mr. Sattar further submits that during the pendency of the aforementioned proceeding, the respondent herein had filed one petition, upon which Misc. (J) Case No. 31/2023, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the CPC was registered for passing necessary orders to obtain expert opinion regarding disputed signatures of the petitioners herein Nos. 1 & 2 which had been exhibited as Exhibit – 1 and Exhibits – A-T and thereafter, on 24.08.2023, hearing both the parties, the learned trial court had observed that the petition will be considered after closure of the defendant’s evidence for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 4.1. Mr. Sattar further submits that, thereafter, on 17.02.2025, the respondent herein filed another petition, upon which Misc. (J) Case No. 89/2024, under Section 39 of the BNS read with Section 151 of the CPC was registered for passing necessary order to send the signatures of the petitioners herein Nos. 1 & 2 and the signature of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Nos. 3(i) & 3(ii) as contained in Exhibit – 1 and Exhibits – A-T along with their respective specimen signatures for expert opinion at FSL, Guwahati and thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned trial court was pleased to allow the petition ignoring the order dated 24.08.2023. 4.2. Mr. Sattar further submits that while there was specific direction that the petition for obtaining expert opinion will be consider only after closure of the defendant’s evidence, without the evidence of the defendant/respondent being completed, the learned trial court had allowed the Misc. (J) Case No. 89/2024 for obtaining expert opinion in respect of signatures of the petitioners herein Nos. 1 & 2 and the signature of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Nos. 3(i) & 3(ii) as contained in Exhibit – 1 and Exhibits – A-T and unless and until the evidence of the defendant’s witness is completed before the learned trial court, the Page No.# 4/4 petitioners herein will be prejudiced and as such, the impugned order, dated 17.02.2025, is required to be interfered with. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also the order dated 24.08.2023 and the impugned order dated 17.02.2025. 6. It appears that in the order dated 24.08.2023, the learned trial court had observed that the petition for obtaining expert opinion regarding disputed signatures of the petitioners herein Nos. 1 & 2 which had been exhibited as Exhibit – 1 and Exhibits – A-T, will be considered after closure of the evidence of the defendant/respondent herein. But, subsequently, in another petition filed by the respondent herein, on 17.02.2025, the learned trial court had allowed the same without examination of the witnesses of the defendant and ignoring the order dated 24.08.2023. 7. Thus, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, it is provided that the direction so passed in the order dated 17.02.2025, shall not be given any effect to till completion of the examination of the witnesses of the defendant/respondent herein, before the learned trial court. 8. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant