2025:JHHC:29192 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 207 of 2024 ------ Smt. Sunanda Roy, wife of Late Tarun Roy, presently residing at T-7/101, Parsvnath, Prestige II (Sristhi), Sector 93A, Noida-201304 (earlier resident of G-31, Sector 39, Noida, P.O. Noida, P.S. & District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301) through her constituted attorney- Ms. Pallak Bhagat, daughter of Sh. Abhay Bhagat, resident of E-606, Mayur Vihar Phase II, Delhi-110091 .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Ratna Prasad @ Ratna Kaur, daughter of Late Sardar Bhajan Singh and wife of Sri Kunal Prasad, resident of No.5, Hazaribagh Road, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi 2. Smt. Tripatjeet Kaur, daughter of Late Sardar Bhajan Singh and wife of Sri Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, residing at C/o Smt. Ratna Prasad No.5, Hazaribagh Road, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi 3. Sri Kunal Prasad, son of not known to the petitioner, husband of Smt. Ratna Prasad, resident of No.5, Hazaribagh Road, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi 4. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, widow of Late Sardar Bhajan Singh, residing at C/o Smt. Ratna Prasad, No.5, Hazaribagh Road, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi 5. Smt. Ralph Tarun Bose, son of Late Sanjit Kumar Bose, resident of 26, Muray Farm Lane, Maple, Ontario, Canada, L6A 3G1, 6. Sri Ruchir Bose, son of Ranjit Bose, resident of G-178/B Nalini Ranjan Avenue, New Alipore, Kolkata, P.O. & P.S. New Alipore, Kolkata, District 24 Pargana- 700053, West Bengal 7. Sri Rajib Bose, son of Late Ranjit Bose, resident of G-178/B Nalini Ranjan Avenue, New Alipore, Kolkata, P.O. & P.S. new Alipore, Kolkata, District 24 Pargana- 700053, West Bengal .... .... .... Opposite Parties With C.M.P. No. 444 of 2022 ------ Smt. Sunanda Roy, wife of Tarun Roy, resident of G-31, Sector 39, Noida, P.O. Noida, P.S. Noida, U.P. 201301 & working as an Advocate from:- 488, Lawyers Chambers, Block II, Delhi High Court, New Delhi- 110003 .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Ratna Prasad @ Ratna Kaur, daughter of Late Sardar Bhajan Singh and wife of Sri Kunal Prasad, resident of No.5, Hazaribagh Road, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi 2. Smt. Tripatjeet Kaur, daughter of Late Sardar Bhajan Singh and wife of Sri Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, residing at C/o Smt. Ratna Prasad, No.5, Hazaribagh Road, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi 3. Sri Kunal Prasad, husband of Smt. Ratna Prasad, resident of No.5, Hazaribagh Road, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi 4. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, widow of Late Sardar Bhajan Singh, residing at C/o Smt. Ratna Prasad @ Ratna Kaur, No.5, Hazaribagh Road, P.O. and P.S. 2025:JHHC:29192 2 Lalpur, District Ranchi 5. Sri Ralph Tarun Bose, son of Late Sanjit Kumar Bose, resident of 26, Murray Farm Lane, Maple, Ontario, Canada, L6A 3G1, 6. Sri Ruchir Bose, son of Ranjit Bose, resident of G-178/B Nalini Ranjan Avenue, New Alipore, Kolkata, P.O. & P.S. New Alipore, Kolkata, District 24 Pargana- 700053, West Bengal 7. Sri Rajib Bose, son of Late Ranjit Bose, resident of G-178/B Nalini Ranjan Avenue, New Alipore, Kolkata, P.O. & P.S. new Alipore, Kolkata- 700053, West Bengal .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, Advocate Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate Order No.18 / Dated : 22.09.2025 Both the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are arising out of the orders passed in Original Suit No.442 of 2013 which has been filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff seeking a declaration that the sale-deed purported to be executed in favour of the defendants/ opposite parties by the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff are forged and fabricated. 2. Plaintiff filed a petition for appointment of handwriting expert for getting the signature of Dorothy Mabel Roy to be verified on the registered sale-deeds by comparing the said signature with another sale-deed which was executed on 31.01.1985 and marked as Exhibit 5. Petition was refused vide order date 10.02.2020, on the ground that the Court is not supposed to collect evidence on behalf of any party, as it will cause delay and the Court has to give its decision being neutral towards all. Secondly, if at the time of appreciation and adjudication of all the controversies at final stage the courts may pass the said order by forming its own opinion on the basis of the several exhibits be hearing the signature of Dorothy Mabel Roy .C.M.P. 444 of 2022 has been preferred against this order. 3. Once the petition was rejected, petitioner/ plaintiff moved another petition on 02.08.2022 under Order XVI Rule I read with Section 151 CPC for summoning a handwriting expert to prove the report of the said handwriting 2025:JHHC:29192 3 expert regarding the verification of the signature on the sale-deeds which are under-challenge in the suit. These reports of the private handwriting expert have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 6 & 6/A. The petition was also rejected against which, C.M.P. No.207 of 2024 has been filed. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was inducted as a caretaker over the suit property and by playing fraud, they got three sale- deeds, one dated 19.04.1982 and two sale-deeds dated 06.03.1982 purported to be executed by one Dorothy Mabel Roy. 5. Petitioner/ plaintiff is the heir and descendant of said Dorothy Mabel Roy. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff that the specific plea taken by the plaintiff/ petitioner in the suit is that the sale- deeds were forged and fabricated on the basis of which, the following issues were framed. It is argued that the presumption in favour of due execution of registered sale deed, is a rebuttable presumption and triable issue which cannot be focused by refusing to permit the plaintiff from adducing evidence on discount. Examination of handwriting expert was essential for the ends of justice. 7. Preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite parties/defendants is that this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order for the reason that while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court can interfere only in cases of lack of jurisdiction or where there is error on the part of the trial Court and complete denial of natural of justice. These are not the facts which have taken place here therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order. Reliance is placed on: - 1958 SCC OnLine SC 45 (2001) 8 SCC 97 (2010) 8 SCC 329 (2018) 2 SCC 87 8. It is further argued that parties to the dispute cannot appoint expert witness of their choice without the courts permission. It is argued that Exhibit 6 & 6/A are reports of private hand writing experts, who are not appointed by 2025:JHHC:29192 4 the Court, and they cannot be considered in view of the ratio laid out in Chetan Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Parwati Devi, Cr.M.P No.2764 of 2023 and Virothi Tirupathi Rao Vs Kota Venu, 2016 SCC On Line Hyd 216. 9. Having heard both sides and considering the materials on record, this Court is of the view that there is no impediment in interfering with the order passed by a trial Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the error in the impugned order is manifest and apparent on the face of proceeding and by denying the plaintiff right to adduce evidence will result in grave injustice. Although in exercise of power under Article 227, the Court has to mainly keep the trial Court’s within their bound. However, when there is patent error without involving any lengthy or complicated argument, it will be appropriate as in the present case to exercise jurisdiction, then to allow the error to persist in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675. 10. This is a case where the sale deed is under challenge of being a forged document and not bearing the signature of the executant. There is an undoubted presumption in favour of due execution of registered instrument. This presumption is however, rebuttable and the plaintiff has a right to adduce evidence in this regard. It was for this that the plaintiff had moved the learned trial Court for appointment of handwriting expert in terms of Section 45 of the Evidence Act read with Order VI Rule 1 of the CPC. Learned trial Court completely misdirected itself to refuse to appoint or summon the handwriting expert. 11. It is to be appreciated that Evidence Act is neatly divided into three parts. Part I runs from Section 1–55 dealing with relevance of evidence which is sine qua non for its admissibility. Part II is regarding mode of proof of the relevant evidence (Section 56–100). Part III is from Section 101–167 dealing with the production and effect of evidence. When the challenge to a sale deed is that it was forged and fabricated, the signature of the executant is a fact in issue, which can be disproved by leading evidence. Thus, the opinion of handwriting expert, though not conclusive, is certainly a relevant evidence which cannot be shut out. By summoning an handwriting under Order VI 2025:JHHC:29192 5 Rule 1 of the CPC, cannot be said to compromise the neutrality of the Court. Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC empowers Court to appoint handwriting experts in appropriate cases. Either in civil or criminal procedure, experts are appointed at the instance of the parties concerned, cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be a partisan act of the Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in (2013) 4 SCC 546, para 14 that Court should be slow to base their finding solely on the comparison made by it. 12. Under the circumstance, the refusal to appoint handwriting expert is not sustainable. Needless to say that once the relevant fact is proved, its effect and evidentiary value will depend by taking the evidence in totality. At the stage of relevancy and proof of evidence, its effect is not germane for consideration. Court will have every right to except or reject it considering the materials brought on record. 13. In this view of matter, order dated 10.02.2020 is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside. C.M.P. No.444 of 2022 is allowed. 14. In view of the above since the prayer for appointment of handwriting expert by Court has been allowed, therefore, the object of summoning handwriting experts privately appointed becomes infructuous. Otherwise also, the purpose of summoning a handwriting expert privately appointed can arise only when he has not been appointed by the Court. In this view of matter, C.M.P. No.207 of 2024 is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) 22.09.2025 Anit