Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010281752025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/530/2025 TAHIR HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O- LATE MUJAMIL ALI LASKAR, R/O- VILL.- RANGAUTI PART-I, P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI, PIN- 788151, ASSAM VERSUS ABDUL HANNAN LASKAR S/O- FAIZUL HAQUE LASKAR, R/O- VILL.- RANGAUTI PART-I, P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788151. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DEKA, MR. I H LASKAR,MR J H LASKAR,MR. P DAIMARY,MR. R. KARIM,MS. N M LONGKENG,J MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : MR H I CHOUDHURY, P ADHIKARI,H YEASMIN,G UDDIN BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 25-05-2026 Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Page No.# 2/5 Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Hailakandi in M.S. No.26/2020, by which the petition no. 1781/2010 was rejected after the lapse of the last chance to take steps as directed by the Court for sending the document for forensic examination. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 11.09.2025, passed by the said learned Court, rejecting the prayer for review of the order dated 17.07.2025. 3. The materials available on record reveal that the original suit by the respondent was registered as M.S. No. 14/2014. Subsequently, the case was transferred from the Civil Judge, Hailakandi to the Court of learned Munsiff No.2, Hailakandi and the suit was re-registered as M.S. No. 26/2020. 4. The learned trial Court, by order dated 31.05.2019, directed an expert opinion from the Directorate of Forensic Science, Kahilipara and the said authority, on forensic examination of the hand note which was sent for examination to give an opinion vide report dated 06.05.2019. Thereafter, the case was fixed for cross-examination of PWs. 5. It may be stated that the suit by the respondent is for recovery of the money due under the hand-note. 6. Thereafter on or about 29.01.2024, a petition was again filed by the petitioner-defendant for sending the same document in respect of which earlier report dated 06.05.2019 was received, this time with a prayer to determine the age of the ink used. The said petition was allowed by order dated 23.05.2025 and the petitioner-defendant was directed to take immediate steps. The matter was then fixed on 20.06.2025, but the order passed on the said date was not brought on record. 7. It appears that on 17.07.2025, the petitioner had prayed for one last Page No.# 3/5 opportunity to take steps by filing petition no. 1781/2010 and the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Hailakandi, rejected the application in view of the delay in taking steps. As per the impugned order dated 17.07.2025, in the date in between, the petitioner-defendant had only filed a court attendance/ Hazira without taking any steps. 8. Against the said order dated 17.07.2025, a review petition was filed, which was petition no. 1867/05 dated 24.07.2025. The said petition was rejected by order dated 11.09.2025. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the prayer for sending the documents for forensic examination was allowed but rejected merely due to delay in taking steps. According, to him the said opportunity could not have been taken up by the learned trial Court. It is stated that the petitioner-defendant had disputed the signature and as the writing in the hand note was of the signature written by different ink, there was reasonable doubt to be clarified by way of forensic examination on the record. In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hyderabad High Court in the case of Namineni Audi Seshaiah v. Numburu Mohan Rao, AIR Online 2018 Hyd 243. 10. It is submitted that reliance has been placed on paragraph nos. 11, 16 to 18 which are based on the discussion made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1963 SC 224. 11. In the present case in hand, the same document was already sent for forensic examination and the opinion report dated 06.05.2019 sent by the Directorate of Forensic Science, Kahilipara at Guwahati, is available. From the Page No.# 4/5 petition no. 414/03, the Court is inclined to note that in paragraph-2 of the said petition, the petitioner-defendant has submitted that the suit was adjourned on many dates and that both parties completed their evidence and cross- examination and the suit was fixed for argument. Thereafter at the stage of argument by filing Petition no. 414/03, the petitioner-defendant has sought to determine the age of the ink. 12. In the copy of the written statement of the petitioner-defendant which is available on record, the handwriting and the age of the ink were never disputed and in paragraph-6 thereof, it was stated that the signature contained in the hand note disputed. In that regard a report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is already available. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, the proposed evidence for determination of the age of the ink will not be in support of the pleadings on record as it is not the pleaded case of the petitioner-defendant in the written statement that the signature was obtained on a blank piece of paper and subsequently filled up. In this case, the petitioner-defendant had denied the signature. Therefore, the evidence sought to be introduced on the age of the ink is beyond pleadings. 13. The decision in the case of Namineni Audi Seshaiah (supra) cannot be applied in the present case in hand because in the present case the disputed document i.e. the hand note was already sent for forensic examination and the report vide opinion dated 06.05.2019. 14. The said decision is not an authority on the point that the same set of documents can be repeatedly sent for forensic examination for one reason or the other. In the considered opinion of the Court, this would make the exercise of determination of fact endless and therefore, the same document cannot be repeatedly sent for forensic examination for different reasons at different points Page No.# 5/5 of time at the instance of the same party. 15. The Court is conscious of the fact that the Court is making the determination under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore the Court is only inclined to see the order suffers from any perversity. 16. In this case, the learned trial Court has already rejected the application and therefore, to that extent, the Court does not find any infirmity with the said order and there is no perversity either. The remarks with regard to the maintainability of sending the said documents for a forensic examination is only a collateral determination. It appears to the Court that the ink of the document is not a fact in issue and such evidence cannot be allowed to be created when the evidence had already closed and the case is fixed for argument. Thus, no interference with the impugned order is called for. 17. Accordingly, the Court does not find any merit in the application and the same is dismissed. 18. As both sides are represented through their learned counsel, both sides are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Hailakandi on 12.06.2026, and also produce certified copy of this order. 19. As the revision is dismissed, the interim order passed on 02.02.2026 gets merged with this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant