Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010150632025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/259/2025 PADAM CHAND JAIN S/O LATE RAMPAL JAIN, R/O MANAV KALYAN NAMGARH ROAD, P.O., P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786125 VERSUS ARUN KUMAR GHOSH AND ANR S/O LATE JITENDRA NATH GHOSH, P/R/A C/O DR. BADAL KUMAR GHOSH, AZAD ROAD, DOOMDOOMA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM AND A P/R/O DISHA APARTMENT, FLAT NO. A-3, RUKMINI NAGAR, S.K. BARUAH ROAD, P.O.- DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 2:STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES ACT C/O STATE BANK OF INDIA TINSUKIA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OFFICE AT MANAB KALYAN ROAD SBI COLONY TINSUKIA P.O. P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA PIN-78612 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. BHASKAR DUTTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR JITENDRA DAS,MR. SAILENDRA DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 16.07.2025 Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.05.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 51/2018. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 28.05.2025, the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Tinsukia (hereinafter ‘trial Court’) has dismissed the petition being petition No.4677/2024, and petition No. 4678/2024, filed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Petition No. 4678/2024, the petitioner has prayed for sending the deed of perpetual lease, being Perpetual Lease Deed No. 1008/2008, dated 02.06.2008, along with deed of sale, being deed No. 676/2017, dated 06.04.2017, for expert opinion as to whether the signatures of the plaintiff appearing in the said deeds are of the person or not. 5. Mr. Dutta, further submits that the plaintiff has denied execution Exhibit-‘D’ in the Perpetual Lease Deed No. 1008/2008, and the plaintiffs signature and thumb impression, both appears in the perpetual deed and although the trial Court had observed that the signatures in Exhibit 1 and ‘D’ are similar and there is no requirement to send this same to the expert for opinion, yet the observation was not made under the provision of Section 73 of the Evidence Act, as such, there is a requirement for sending the same to the opinion of Page No.# 3/3 expert and the same will help in deciding the entire issue and therefore, Mr. Dutta, has contended to allow this petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record also perused the impugned order dated 28.05.2025. 7. It appears that while rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner, the learned trial Court had observed that the signature of the plaintiff in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit D are similar and that attesting witness of the aforesaid deeds are yet to be examined and that the schedule property of Exhibit-‘D’ is different from the schedule property described in the plaint. 8. Taking note of the submissions of Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and also considering the facts and circumstances on record, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the learned Court to consider the prayer of the petitioner after completion of examination of attesting witnesses of the deeds. The impugned order is interfered with to the extent indicated herein above. 9. In terms of above, this CRP(IO) stands disposed of at the motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant