Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010192262025 2026:GAU-AS:13707 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/365/2025 NAVODIP KR. ROY @ NABODEEP KR. ROY S/O. LT. KUKIL CH. ROY, R/O. VILL.- JHAGRARPAR PT-II, P/O. JHAGRARPAR, P/S. DHUBRI, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783325. VERSUS BHARAT PRODHANI AND ANR. S/O. LT. DILIP KR. PRODHANI 2:SUJATA PRODHANI W/O. LT. DILIP KR. PRODHANI'BOTH ARE R/O. VILL.- PASCHIM KANURI PT-III P/S. GOLAKGANJ P/O. BISHKHOWA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS CHITRALEKHA DAS, MS. D. DEVI,MR. K R PATGIRI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K BHATTACHARJEE (R-1,2), MS. A BARMAN(R- 1,2),ABBASH U AHMED(R-1,2),MS T BARUAH(R-1,2) Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 16/09/2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.R. Patgiri. Also heard learned counsel, Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. By filing the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India R/W Section 151 of the CPC, the petitioner herein has prayed for revision, modification and alteration of the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhubri in Petition No. 2548/2025 arising out of Title Suit No. 44/2022. 3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the instant review petition is that the petitioner as plaintiff had filed a title suit registered as Title Suit No. 44/2022 before the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhubri against the respondents. Summons were issued to the respondents/defendants and upon receiving the summons the respondents have duly appeared and filed their written statements on 28.04.2021. 4. Th petitioner states that thereafter, on 09.02.2023, the Evidence in Chief of the plaintiff side has been filed before the learned Trial Court and three witnesses have been examined as plaintiff witness. 5. Upon completion of the evidence of the plaintiff witness, the Evidence of Chief of the defendant has also been filed by two defense witnesses in favour of the defendants/respondents. Page No.# 3/8 6. The petitioner also states that while perusing the written statements as well as in the cross examination, the petitioner/plaintiff had come to know that the defendant No. 1 has denied his signature on the sale agreement dated 03/01/2020 (Exhibit-2) as well as in the written reply filed against the Advocate notice. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff had to take recourse to prove the signature of the defendants through hand writing expert under the provisions of Section 39 of the BSA. The said petition was registered as petition No. 2548/2025. Thereafter, the defendants also filed their written objection against the said petition and the matter was heard by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division on 21.07.2025. 7. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division after hearing the parties rejected the application of the petitioner/plaintiff by the impugned order dated 21.07.2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court in the present revision petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below had passed the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 on the ground that the petitioner has not annexed the details of the documents which need to be examined by the expert in his petition however, the petition No. 245/2025 is an interlocutory application and the documents to be examined are also available in the records of the main title suit. Therefore, the learned trial court has committed an error by holding that the petitioner had not annexed the details of the documents to be examined by the expert. 9. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner/plaintiff had clearly mentioned in his petition regarding his readiness to bear the expenditure for the purpose of obtaining the expert opinion but the learned court below has Page No.# 4/8 overlooked the matter and passed the impugned order. Learned counsel submits that the learned court below ought to have allowed the petition by giving the petitioner an opportunity to prove his case but the learned court below has rejected his prayer by the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 and learned counsel prays that this instant petition may be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner/plaintiff may be allowed to prove the signatures of the defendants by obtaining expert opinion. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel, Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, for the respondents submits that the respondent had already filed the written statements on 28.04.2021 wherein, it was specifically stated that no agreement for sale was executed by the defendant No. 1 and that no amount of consideration has been received by him as alleged. Even in his evidence in chief, the respondents had deposed that they had not entered in any agreement of sale. In spite of having knowledge about such objection by the defendants, the petitioner/plaintiff did not file the application praying for opinion of legal expert at the relevant time. However, after the evidence wad led and at the final stage of the trial when the suit is now at the stage of arguments, the petitioner had filed the application before the trial court praying for the expert opinion. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner in his application has not stated under which provision of law the application was been filed and moreover had not specified the documents which are to be sent for expert opinion. Learned counsel also submits that by virtue of power under Section 72 of the BSA, even without obtaining the opinion of hand writing expert, the trial court is empowered to compare the signature, writing or seal which is disputed and therefore, there is no necessity of obtaining the expert opinion which would only lead to further Page No.# 5/8 delay of the trial. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on a judgment dated 20.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No. 411/2024 in the case of A. Mohan Roopa Vs. Smti. D. Bhajyalakashmi wherein, the Hon’ble High Court was dealing with a case of similar nature. The court held that although the petitioner had the opportunity of filing the application after filing of the written statements and after the defendants defense was known to him but he had not availed the opportunity at the relevant time. Merely because application seeking opinion of an expert can be filed at any stage, it does not mean that the petitioner can wait till the end of the proceedings and seek such opinion. Wherever the court held that there is discretion the same has to be exercised judiciously and if at all the facts and circumstances show that the relief could not be sought earlier there is justification to allow the petition for the opinion of an expert, even at the late stage of the proceedings, however, such discretion cannot be invoked to seek the relief at the fag end of the trial when there is no justification for not seeking such relief at the earliest possible time. 12. Learned counsel submits that the facts and circumstances in the present case are also similar in as much as the petitioner/plaintiff had not approached the court with an application for expert opinion when he came to know about the defense taken by the defendants. Learned counsel therefore submits that there is no perversity in the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 in as much as the learned trial court had rightly observed that the petitioner in his application had not specifically mentioned anything about which disputed signature was required to be examined by the expert. Learned trial court has rightly observed Page No.# 6/8 that the petitioner has not even specifically mentioned as to what are the documents wherein the signature of the defendants are required to be proved. Moreover, the petitioner had not enclosed any documents along with the petitioner. Leaned counsel therefore submits that the instant petition is devoid of merit and needs to be dismissed. 13. This Court has duly noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings in detail. In a revision against an interlocutory procedural order, the interference of this Court should ordinarily be limited to a case of jurisdictional error, material irregularity, perversity or failure to exercise judicial discretion, and this Court should not interfere merely because another view on the application is possible. 14. This Court has specially examined the petition of the petitioner/plaintiff registered as petition No. 22548 which is purportedly a petition praying for allowing to prove the signature of the defendants Nos. 1 & 2 through hand writing expert. Upon going through the said petition, and the proceeding of the trial this Court has seen that the petitioner/plaintiff was aware from the time the written statement was filed and the evidence was adduced that the signatures were disputed. Nevertheless no applications was made during the entire period when the evidence was being recorded. The application was filed only after completion of evidence and at the stage of arguments. More significantly, the application does not identify the documents/signatures which are required to be examined and there were no necessary particulars which would have enabled the trial court to determine the precise scope of the proposed expert examination without which the trial court could not have passed an effective order. There is also no satisfactory explanation in the application for the belated Page No.# 7/8 filing of the said petition. It is difficult to accept the submission of the petitioner that the documents required to be verified by the expert were not enclosed along with the petition No. 2548 as the documents were already in the main title suit. It is settled procedure that even an interlocutory application has to be accompanied by all the documents which are required to be examined by the court. 15. This Court also finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner/plaintiff could have also taken recourse to provisions of section 72 of the BSA as the court is empowered to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made and the court can direct any person to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. It is also pertinent that at the stage of arguments allowing an inadequately drafted application would potentially require re-opening the evidence, obtaining expert opinion and giving the other side an opportunity to cross examine the expert and this would definitely delay the trial. 16. In view of the discussion and observations made herein above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, material irregularity or perversity and the same needs no interference. 17. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and consequently the petition stands dismissed. 18. However, the petitioner/plaintiff is at liberty to pray before the Trial Court Page No.# 8/8 for invoking it’s powers under Section 72 of the BSA, if so advised. And in the event such a prayer is made, the trial court shall consider the same and decide on merits. 19. Petition stands disposed. 20. The stay order passed on 29.08.2025 stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant