1 CGHC010295172026 2026:CGHC:33348 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 960 of 2026 Ashish Kumar @ Kamal Kishore S/o Late Chedidas, Aged About 55 Years R/o Dogariyakhurd, Tahsil Kanda, District Kabirdham C G Current Address Kali Mai Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, C G ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Keshav Prasad S/o Shri Dhanau, Aged About 52 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Dogariya Khurd, Ward No. 1, Post Bharewa, Tahsil Kunda, District Kabirdham, C G 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh , Through Collector Kabirdham, District Kabirdham C G ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy.G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 31/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 15.07.2026 SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.08.01 11:12:36 +0530 2 passed by learned Additional Judge, Pandariya to the Court of First Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kawardha, District - Kabirdham in Civil Suit No. 12A/2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 10A of CPC read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been rejected by the learned trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court who is prosecuting a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession against the defendants with respect to the suit land Khasra No. 94/3, area 2.40 acre, situated at Village - Dogariyakhurd, Tehsil - Kunda, District - Kabirdham. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was obtained by the plaintiff in partition on 04.02.1997 alongwith other property of the family and since then he is in possession of the same. On 19.03.2021, he entered into an agreement with the defendant No.1 to sell the said land for total consideration of Rs. 4,15,000/-, however, in the said agreement, Rs. 15,000/- was said to have been paid to the plaintiff through the cheque of District Co-operative Central Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon, whereas no any amount have been paid to him. He said that the said cheque No. 914320 had taken back by the defendant No.1 from the plaintiff. He would also submit that the plaintiff's case is also that he has never handed over the possession of the subject land to the defendant No.1 and with the collusion of revenue authorities, he get his name mutated in the revenue records of the subject land. Therefore, the said sale deed dated 19.03.2021 has been challenged by the plaintiff and also claimed recovery of possession from him. He would also submit that during pendency of the 3 suit, the defendant No.1 has filed a document which is an acknowledgment dated 28.03.2021 allegedly signed by the plaintiff, which has been denied by the plaintiff. To resolve the controversy involved in the present case, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10A of the CPC read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for seeking examination of the acknowledgment dated 28.03.2021 by a handwriting expert. However, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the plaintiff, in his evidence, had admitted the execution of the acknowledgment, and therefore no purpose would be served by referring the document for expert examination. He would also submit that the plaintiff in his evidence admitted the deed allegedly executed in a stamp paper whereas the defendant has filed the document which is unstamped and it is a fabricated document by the defendant No.1, therefore, to decide the real controversy between the parties, the examination of the said document from the handwriting expert is necessary and the learned trial Court may be directed to allow the application by setting aside the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. The acknowledgment dated 28.03.2021 is the subject document in the present case for which the petitioner is claiming that it should be examined by the handwriting expert as the plaintiff has denied his signature over the said deed. From para 13 of the cross-examination of the plaintiff, it transpires that he admitted that a deed was executed with respect to the sale of the subject land and in pursuance thereof, 4 he obtained Rs. 4 lakhs from the defendant No.1 on 28.03.2021 and executed the sale deed in his favor. Though, the said document is available on record but the defendant No.1 has not confronted with the plaintiff about execution of the said document and still the said document dated 28.03.2021 has not been relied upon by any of the parties till date. The evidence of the defendant is yet to be recorded and it is for the defendant whether he relied upon the said acknowledgment or not during his examination. At this stage, the plaintiff's denial of his signatures on the deed dated 28.03.2021 does not, by itself, entitle him to seek its examination by a handwriting expert. The necessity for such examination would arise only after the defendant has led his evidence and if he chooses to rely upon the said document in support of his case, gets it duly exhibited in evidence during the course of his examination. 6. Accordingly, at this stage, I do not find any infirmity or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application by the learned trial Court. 7. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. 8. However, the petitioner is at liberty to repeat his prayer if occasion so arises. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sumit