Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8561 (UTT)

Mohd Rafi v. Zahid Husain

2026-01-05

Pankaj Purohit

body2026
JUDGMENT : PANKAJ PUROHIT, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramnagar, District Nainital in Civil Suit No.06 of 2022, whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 10-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking comparison of signatures and thumb impressions through a scientific expert, came to be rejected. The petitioners have further assailed the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital in Civil Revision No.06 of 2025, affirming the order of the trial court. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is thus invoked on the plea that the courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in declining the said application. 2. The facts of the case are that respondent nos. 1 to 3, who are brothers, had earlier initiated proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the present petitioners, asserting that the petitioners were tenants in the premises in question. Those proceedings were rejected by the Prescribed Authority. Subsequent rent control appeals, including Rent Control Appeals No.10 and 11 of 2011, also met the same fate and were dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, respondent nos.1 to 3 approached this Court by filing three writ petitions in the year 2012, which were ultimately withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate civil remedies. Pursuant thereto, respondent nos.1 to 3 instituted Civil Suit No.06 of 2021 (later renumbered as 06 of 2022), seeking reliefs on the assertion that the petitioners were merely caretakers and liable to be evicted. In the said suit, the petitioners filed their written statement disputing the title and assertions of the plaintiffs and also placed reliance upon certain documents, including agreements to sell dated 26.10.1969 and 26.03.1974, contending that portions of the land had been purchased by their predecessors and that the remaining portion was nazul land recorded in their names. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners moved an application bearing Paper No. 62-C under Order XXVI Rule 10-A read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the signatures and thumb impressions appearing on the aforesaid documents be sent for comparison with certain admitted signatures and thumb impressions available in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Haldwani. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners moved an application bearing Paper No. 62-C under Order XXVI Rule 10-A read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the signatures and thumb impressions appearing on the aforesaid documents be sent for comparison with certain admitted signatures and thumb impressions available in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Haldwani. The learned trial court, upon consideration, rejected the said application by order dated 27.01.2025, holding that the prayer was not warranted at that stage and that the application was not necessary for the just decision of the case. The revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 31.10.2025, affirming the reasoning of the trial court. It is these concurrent orders which are under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned orders vehemently and contended that the courts below have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. It is urged that the execution of the documents dated 26.10.1969 and 26.03.1974 has been specifically denied by respondent nos.1 to 3 and, therefore, comparison of the disputed signatures and thumb impressions with admitted ones was imperative for a just and proper adjudication of the suit. It is argued that the petitioners had not sought any adjudication on merits at the interlocutory stage, but merely prayed for a scientific comparison of signatures and thumb impressions, which is a recognized mode of proof under law. According to the petitioners, the learned trial court committed manifest illegality in rejecting the application without appreciating that the relevant admitted documents were already available in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Haldwani, and that no prejudice would have been caused to the respondents if such comparison was permitted. 4. The petitioners further contend that both the trial court as well as the revisional court has exceeded their jurisdiction by delving into the merits of the controversy, instead of confining themselves to the limited question of necessity of expert opinion. It is submitted that refusal to obtain expert evidence has resulted in grave failure of justice and has deprived the petitioners of an effective opportunity to establish their defence. It is submitted that refusal to obtain expert evidence has resulted in grave failure of justice and has deprived the petitioners of an effective opportunity to establish their defence. It is also submitted that the impugned orders suffer from perversity inasmuch as the courts below ignored the litigation history between the parties, the rejection of rent control proceedings, and the fact that the petitioners’ possession over the property is reflected in municipal records. On these premises, it is submitted that the orders impugned warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the record and the orders impugned, this Court finds no ground to interfere in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is to the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramnagar rejecting the petitioners’ application under Order XXVI Rule 10-A read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, which order has been affirmed in revision by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 31.10.2025. The power to seek expert opinion is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The courts below have examined the necessity of such comparison and have recorded cogent reasons for declining the request at the interlocutory stage. 6. Furthermore, the courts below were well within their jurisdiction to assess whether such an exercise was necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute. Mere denial of execution of documents does not automatically mandate comparison through an expert, particularly when the documents relied upon is already part of the record and the matter is yet to proceed to final adjudication. A reading of the impugned orders shows that the courts have only examined the necessity and relevance of the proposed expert evidence and have not rendered any finding on the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed documents. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is warranted only in cases of patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity, none of which is demonstrated in the present case. The impugned orders reflect a proper exercise of discretion and do not call for interference. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.