1 2025:CGHC:45495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 867 of 2025 1 - Sheikh Shamshad S/o Sheikh Abdul Aziz Aged About 51 Years R/o Bilaigarh, Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa (Now District Sakti) (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sarita Devi (Died) Through Lrs Nil 1.1 - (A) Bhavesh S/o Chandraprakash Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Komal Das, R/o Om Nagar Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur (C.G.) 1.2 - (B) Bhawna D/o Chandraprakash Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Komal Das, R/o Om Nagar Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur (C.G.) 1.3 - (C) Srishti D/o Chandraprakash Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Komal Das, R/o Om Nagar Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Chandrprakash Ogre (Died) Nil 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Janjgir-Champa (Now District Sakti) (C.G.) 4 - Punidas S/o Shaukidas Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Balpur, Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Bhuribai W/o Bhagau Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No. 4. Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti (C.G.) 6 - Bhoko @ Dolo S/o Late Bhagau Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.08 18:15:42 +0530 2 4. Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti (C.G.) 7 - Gurbaraj S/o Late Bhagau Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 4. Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti (C.G.) 8 - Nanki S/o Late Bhagau Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 4. Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Tapan Chandra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1A to 1C : Mr. Manish Kumar Saluja, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 08-09-2025 1) Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned Additional Judge, Dabhra to First Civil Judge – Senior Division, District – Janjgir Champa (C.G.) [now District – Sakti] in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2019 dated 19.08.2025. 2) Petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit claiming declaration of title, permanent injunction and to declare the sale-deed dated 30.05.2011 as null and void. During the pendency of suit, the document under question i.e. sale-deed dated 30.05.2011 was sent to a handwriting expert for its opinion regarding the questioned signature and thumb impression and report was submitted on 15.09.2024. Petitioner filed WP227 No. 761 of 2025 and sought a liberty to raise objection before learned Trial Court with regard to appointment of Dr. S.K. Dhenge (Handwriting Expert) who had examined the questioned document earlier. 3 Petitioner raised objection before the learned Trial Court and same has been rejected vide order dated 19.08.2025 on two grounds – (i) application was moved by the plaintiff for examination of handwriting expert Dr. S.K. Dhenge and (ii) though, the questioned document is same, but signature and thumb impression are to be compared with different documents. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Trial Court committed error of law while rejecting the application moved by the plaintiff. He further submits that the questioned document is same and handwriting expert is also same, therefore document should be referred to another handwriting expert for comparison of signature and thumb impression. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents oppose. They submit that learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application moved by plaintiff. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) It appears that earlier on instance of petitioner, examination of signature and thumb impression put on the questioned document was carried out by Dr. S.K. Dhenge and report was also submitted. Thereafter, application was moved by the plaintiff for examination of Dr. S.K. Dhenge and during pendency of that application, an objection was raised on the ground that as earlier, the document in question was examined by Dr. S.K. Dhenge, therefore matter may be referred to another handwriting expert. 4 7) Perusal of order impugned would show that questioned document is same but but signature and thumb impression are to be compared with different documents, therefore learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application moved by petitioner/ plaintiff and no case is made out for interference. 8) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the proceeding. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a