Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010051882026 2026:GAU-AS:6480 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/41/2026 SITAL BARDHAN S/O SHRI SUSHIL BARDHAN, R/O PANDU, ADABARI COLONY, P.O- PANDU, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781012 VERSUS CHAND MAHAMMAD ALI S/O LATE HAZI ISMAIL ALI, R/O HATIGAON HOUSING COLONY, HOUSE NO. C-83, P.O- BELTOLA, P.S- HATIGAON, DIST- KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781038 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B PATHAK, MISS A BORAH,MS M TIWARI,MR B HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S SHARMA, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 11.05.2026 Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Page No.# 2/3 read with Section 115 of the CPC, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the M.S. No. 66 of 2014 has assailed the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in the said suit. 3. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner- defendant for sending the signature of the respondent-defendant on the alleged agreement dated 30.04.2011 for forensic examination was rejected. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the cross- examination of the respondent as DW-1 has stated that he had denied his signature and had expressed no objection for sending the Ext.1 and his signature thereon for forensic examination. However, it is submitted that the said fact was not appreciated in its correct perspective and the application was dismissed merely on the ground that as the money suit has been pending since 2014 and arrived at the conclusion that non-sending of the signatures of the defendant to the handwriting expert would not hamper the chances of the plaintiff to succeed in the suit. 5. Having considered the issue involved in this application, the Court is of the considered opinion that this Court, while exercising superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not substitute its view over the considered decision of the learned trial Court as the same suffers from no perversity whatsoever and therefore, the Court is of the view that the order dated 05.01.2026, impugned in this application does not warrant any interference. 6. In the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioner would not be prejudiced because of the fact that under Section 105 of the CPC, it would be open to the petitioner to assail the impugned order dated 05.01.2026, if so Page No.# 3/3 advised, at the appellate stage. Moreover, there are other appropriate provisions in the Civil Procedure Code to take care of the plea of the petitioner for examining further evidence in the form of forensic examination of the Ext.1. Therefore, in exercise of superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati by which petition No. 4427 of 2025 in M.S. No. 66 of 2014 was dismissed. However, the said order dated 05.01.2026 would not preclude the petitioner from exercising his right which may flow from the provisions of Section 105 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. In view of the discussion above, this writ petition stands dismissed. 8. There shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant