Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated September 4, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.1 of 2003 thereby allowing an application for appointment of a handwriting expert.
(2.) THE short question involved in the matter is whether certain portion of a petition filed before the Court was inserted afterwards in a Misc. Case No.1 of 2003 under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. It is contended that the said portion of the petition was subsequently incorporated in the petition in question. In order to decide such fact, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application for appointment of a handwriting expert. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred by the petitioner. 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 in an Execution Case No.1 of 2002 for recovery of possession, the petitioner got recovery of possession on March 27, 2002 and a report to that effect was submitted by the concerned Nazir on March 28, 2002. The opposite party filed a misc. case being No.11 of 2002 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. and he prayed for temporary injunction. On being refused, a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.285 of 2002 was filed by him and the said matter was fixed for hearing on September 12, 2002 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore. Thereafter, the application for injunction was granted on September 12, 2002. The landlady started demolition work and as such, the Misc. Case No.1 of 2003 was filed on January 18, 2003 under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. In that matter, the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order for appointment of a handwriting expert on the matter already referred to. Now, the appointment of a handwriting expert is within the discretionary power of the learned Trial Judge and it depends upon the situation as to whether a handwriting expert would be appointed or not.
(3.) UPON consideration of the allegation that certain portion of a petition was inserted afterwards, the question cropped up whether the so-called portion existed there at the time of filing of the said petition. I have considered the decision of Smt. Aditi Rani Biswas v. Sri Khagendra Nath Dutta & anr. Reported 2011(1) CLJ(Cal) 540 in support of the order under challenge. Since, the learned Trial Judge has exercised his discretionary power, I am of the view that the matter does not call for any interference at all. The learned Trial Judge has passed the orders within his right and it cannot be stated that he has caused miscarriage of justice in allowing the said application. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. Therefore, this application is devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.;