1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya C.O.227 of 2026 SAIFUL ALOM AHMED AND ORS. -Vs- GOLAM KOBIR AHMED. For the Petitioner : Ms. Salma Sultana Shah, Ms. Sani Hossain, Mr. Miraj Hossain. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Golam Mastafa, Mr. Tarasankar Samanta. Delivered on : 24.09.2026 Supratim Bhattacharya, J. : 1. Affidavit of service has been filed which be kept with the record. 2. The opposite party is being represented. 3. The backdrop of the lis is it involves partition. During evidence of P.W.1 that is the opposite party a document was placed that is ‘Angikar Patra’ dated 26th October, 1989. The said opposite party-plaintiff denied his signature as such the petitioner-defendant prayed for sending the document to a 2 2 handwriting expert. The said prayer of the petitioner- defendant has been rejected. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed on 08.08.2025, the petitioner-defendant has preferred the present civil revisional application. 5. The learned advocate representing the petitioner-defendant submits that the signature on the ‘Angikar Patra’ was of the plaintiff-opposite party, which has been denied as such the petitioner-defendant had sought for sending the document to a handwriting expert, ought to have been allowed. In support of his contention, the learned advocate has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Ram Avatar Soni Vs. Mahanta Laxmidhar Das And Ors, published at (2018) 14 S.C.R.39. 6. The learned advocate representing the opposite party-plaintiff submits that the impugned order passed by the Learned Trial Judge does not require interference, as it has been passed following the provisions of law and as the said application was pre-mature. 7. Ongoing through the contentions of the learned advocates it transpires that the issue involves handwriting on ‘Angikar Patra’ which has been denied by the opposite party-plaintiff, as such it has been prayed to send the said document before 3 3 the handwriting expert. The petitioner-defendant has sought for scientific examination under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been disallowed by the Learned Trial Judge. 8. From the said document it transpires that it is an agreement between the predecessors of the plaintiff and the defendant which has been alleged to be in the handwriting of the plaintiff, which being denied by the plaintiff-defendant has been sought for scientific investigation of the same, which has been rejected by the Learned Trial Judge. 9. This Court is of the view that to reach to the just conclusion of the case the prayer seeking scientific investigation of the said document under Order XXVI Rule 10A should have been allowed. As such the impunged order dated 08.08.2025, passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court, Malda, in Partition Suit No.35 of 2024 is being set aside. 10. The Learned Trial Judge is requested to take further steps in accordance with the provisions of law laid under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, in respect of the said document. 11. The civil revisional application being C.O. No.227 of 2026 is disposed of. 4 4 12. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Supratim Bhattacharya,. J)