Decided on October 21,2010



Dinakaran, CJ - (1.) THESE writ petitions are directed against a common order dated 09.09.2010 made in two interim applications (unnumbered) in Title Suit No.1 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Judge, Special Division -I Sikkim at Gangtok which was originally numbered as Civil Suit No.9 of 2000 on the file of the learned District Judge, East and North Districts at Gangtok.
(2.) THE writ petitioner is the defendant No. 4 in the said suit. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank before the trial Court. The writ petitioner/defendant No. 4 filed the above two un -numbered applications, namely, (i) under Order XXVI, Rule 10A (1) read with Sections 75 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a direction for sending all the documents and sample signatures of defendant No.1 for scrutiny by expert for their opinion at the cost of defendant No. 4, for proper decision and adjudication of the suit claim; and (ii) under Order VIII, Rule 1 A (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking leave of the Court for producing the following documents at the hearing of the suit as additional documents namely: - (a) the joint compromise petition of the contesting parties in Regular First Appeal No. 4 of 2002 filed before the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok is dated 20.03.2003; (b) the certified copy of the decree in the said appeal in RFA No. 4 of 2002 filed by the defendant No. 4 dated 20.03.2003; (c) the certified copy of the decree in original of Civil Suit No. 36 of 1997 dated 17.07.2000; (d) the sale deed document dated 29.03.2003; (e) the Challan for money deposited by defendant No. 4 as land registration fee in the State Bank of Sikkim dated 15.12.2003; (f) the memo No. 2/DCE addressed to defendant No. 4 from the Sub -Registrar dated 03.01.2004; and (g) the seven revenue receipts dated 22.04.2005, 17.04.2006,24.04.2007,21.02.2008,21.01.2009, 21.01.2009 and 10.03.2010. The learned District Judge, Special Division -I dismissed both the applications by a common order dated 09.09.2010.
(3.) AS the writ petitioner has filed only a single writ petition against the said common order dated 09.09.2010 made in two unnumbered applications referred to above, Mr. N.K.P. Sarraf, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, seeks the permission of this Court to pay additional court fee for two writ petitions against the said two unnumbered applications. Permission granted. The Registry is granted to number both the writ petitions accordingly. The learned trial Judge dismissed both the said applications for the following reasons: - firstly, the defendant No. 4 is attempting to protract the proceedings; secondly, the State of Sikkim does not have necessary facilities for examining the documents by handwriting experts; and the handwriting experts at Kolkata, which is the nearest State offering such facilities, are also over burdened and, unable to meet the demand; thirdly, the signatures can very well be proved by the witnesses available; and fourthly, the defendant No. 4 has not given valid and just reason for the delay in seeking the permission to file the above mentioned seven additional documents at this belated stage, when the trial has already commenced.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.