HARISH TANDON, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application is directed against the order no. 24 dated 27th February, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Title Suit No. 20 of 2014, by which an application for appointment of the fingerprint expert is rejected on two fold grounds; firstly that the original deed is misplaced or lost and, therefore, no comparison can be made, secondly if the petitioner intends to challenge the deed, he has the other forum or avenue and not the present suit. Admittedly the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 based his claim for partition on the strength of the said purported deed. The petitioner, being the defendant in the said suit, denied the authenticity, genuinity or veracity of the said deed.
(2.) IT is a specific case of the petitioner that the LTI put on the said deed is not the LTI of the vendor named therein and is, therefore, forged one. The original deed has not been produced before the Court and, therefore, the Court has no occasion to direct the comparison the LTI put on the said deed with the LTI of the petitioner, who is the so -called vendor of the said deed.
(3.) MR . Partha Pratim Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the LTI of the petitioner can be compared with the LTI put before registering authority at the time of registration of the purported deed with the LTI put before the Court and, therefore, the Court ought not to have rejected the said application. Furthermore he submits that the entire claim for partition is based on the said deed and if a serious challenge as to the veracity and/or genuinity of the said deed is made, the Court is competent to compare the LTI and should not relegate the parties to another proceeding. My attention is drawn to an application for appointment of the fingerprint expert by the learned advocate of the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1, wherein the petitioner/defendant no. 1 prayed for comparison of the LTI put on the impugned deed with the LTI to be put in the open Court. Since the deed is misplaced or lost, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be allowed. So far as the other ground of rejection recorded by the Trial Court is concerned, it cannot be supported at all. If a suit for partition is based on the impugned deed, which is seriously disputed by the defendants, there is no impediment on the Court to direct the comparison of the LTI put on the impugned deed with the LTI of the vendor therein.;