- (1.) This application is at the instance of the defendant/petitioner and is directed against the order no.14 dated July 23, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tehatta, District - Nadia in Title Suit No.86 of 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has rejected the petition filed by the defendant.
(2.) The short fact is that the plaintiffs filed the suit for ejectment under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Notice had been duly served upon the defendant and then the suit was filed. In that suit, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement denying that he had received any notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and that he had signed on the A/D card. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application for verification of the signature appearing on the A/D card by a handwriting expert and that application was rejected by the order impugned. Being aggrieved, the defendant has filed this application.
(3.) Upon perusal of the materials placed in support of the application and on hearing the submission of the learned Advocate for the parties, I find that the learned Trial Judge has adopted himself as an expert. He had compared the signature appearing on the A/D card along with other admitted signatures appearing on the documents such as vakalatnama, written statement, etc. and then he had come to a conclusion that there was no justification to allow the prayer of the defendant and to send the signatures of the defendant for examination by a handwriting expert. This is contrary to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Trial Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction by taking the task of the handwriting expert by making a comparison himself.;