IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 5876 of 2007
Satyendra Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Moti Lal Sahu and others ... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
For the Respondent no. 11&13: Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
-----
13/26.11.2009
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plaintiff-
respondent no. 1 filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant bearing Title
Suit No. 136 of 1989 for declaring registered Sale-deed No. 5310
executed by him to be void and inoperative. Other sale-deeds, which were
executed by the petitioner-defendant, have also been sought to be
declared void and inoperative.
In that suit, when the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 led evidences
that the thumb impression appearing over the Sale-deed No. 5310 never
belongs to him, the petitioner-defendant filed an application praying
therein to send the said sale-deed bearing L.T.I. before any hand writing
expert for its verification with any admitted document bearing L.T.I. of
respondent no. 1, but the prayer was rejected by the court below vide its
order dated 6.9.2007 on the ground that said exercise would delay the
disposal of the case.
Being aggrieved with that order, this writ application has been
preferred.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do feel that for
effective adjudication of the controversy, which has been raised, the court
below should have allowed the prayer of the petitioner-defendant to get
the disputed L.T.I. verified from the admitted L.T.I. of respondent no. 1 by
an expert, as the same could have been one of the measures for resolving
the dispute as to whether L.T.I., put on the registered sale deed, in
question, is the L.T.I. of the plaintiff or not.
In that circumstances, the trial court has wrongly rejected the
prayer made in this respect on behalf of the petitioner-defendant and
hence it is set aside.
Consequently, it will be open for both the parties to get the
L.T.I. appearing on the registered Sale-deed No. 5310 verified by any
expert, with any admitted L.T.I. appearing on a document within a period
of three months. The parties will bear the costs for that themselves.
Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of.
AKT (R.R. Prasad, J.)