Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is directed against the Order No.18 dated August 25, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Tamluk in Title Suit No.73 of 2009 thereby allowing an application for appointment of a handwriting expert.
(2.) THE short fact is that the opposite parties instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.73 of 2009 against the petitioners for declaration, injunction and other reliefs. THE defendants are contesting the said suit by entering an appearance. THE plaintiffs challenged the deed dated July 17, 1960 contending, inter alia, that late Basudev Pakhira, father of plaintiff no.1 did not execute the said deed. Accordingly, on the prayer of the plaintiffs, a handwriting expert was appointed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the defendant nos.1 to 6. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record I find that the plaintiffs have filed the suit contending that they have right, title and interest over the 'Ka' schedule property as described in the schedule to the plaint and that the defendant nos.1 to 6 have no right, title and interest in the property. They have prayed for permanent injunction against the defendant nos.1 to 6 restraining them from interfering with their possession in respect of 'Ka' schedule property. the plaintiffs have contended that Basudev Pakhira, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs did not transfer the suit property in favour of the father of the defendants and his brother on July 17, 1960.
(3.) IT may be recorded herein that one Nidhu Pakhira was the original owner of the 'Ka' schedule property measuring 10 decimals and 'Kha' schedule property measuring 7 decimals of land under R.S. Dag No.125, Khatian No.96 under P.S. Panskura, Purba Midnapore. He died living two sons, namely, Sarat and Sashi. Shasi had three sons, namely, Panchanan, Ratan (died as bachelor) and Basudev. Panchanan died living the defendants and Basudev died living the plaintiffs as heirs. The plaintiffs wanted that a handwriting expert should be appointed to verify the L.T.I. of Basudev Pakhira appearing on the deed dated July 17, 1960. Mr. Gayen appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that a handwriting expert can be appointed for verification of the signature or the L.T.I. provided an admitted signature / L.T.I. is available. If no admitted signature / L.T.I. is available, the comparison with the disputed one could not be made. In support of his contention, Mr. Gayen has referred to the decision of Bhupendra Narain Mandal v. Narain Lal Das and ors. reported in AIR 1965 Patna 332 and the decision of T. Subbiah v. S.K.D. Ramaswamy Nadar reported in AIR 1970 Madras 85. By referring the decision of Bhupendra Narain Mandal (supra) particularly the paragraph no.19, Mr. Gayen has submitted that the handwriting expert could be appointed when the admitted signatures are available. In the instant case, the opposite parties have wanted to compare the disputed signatures with the ones appearing on the L.T.I. register in respect of a deed executed in 1968, that is, after lapse of 8 years and this is not permissible, he has contended.;