***

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) –

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate order or direction for quashing the order dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mukerian, vide which the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission for comparison through handwriting expert has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the plea raised in the plaint to the effect that a compromise was entered into between the parties by virtue of which the petitioner/defendant had agreed to re-transfer the disputed share out of khasra No.6//4(5-7), has been specifically denied in the written statement (Annexure P-2) and it is the specific stand of the petitioner that no such compromise dated 25.10.2010 had been entered into and the same is a result of fabrication. It is submitted that in support of the said plea, the petitioner wants to make a comparison of his signatures on the sale deed dated 09.06.2008 with that of his alleged signatures on the compromise dated 25.10.2010 through a handwriting expert. It is submitted that the said application has been illegally dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 21.08.2023 and the said order deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the present revision petition and has submitted that the suit in the present case was filed in the year 2011 and the present application seeking permission for comparison through handwriting expert had been moved by the petitioner/defendant after the evidence of the defendant had been closed. It is submitted that the provision regarding additional evidence has already been deleted from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is further submitted that the petitioner, when he appeared in the witness box as DW2, in his cross-examination had admitted that the first two letters of signature on the compromise were that of the defendant and had only stated about there being some manipulation with respect to the third letter. It is submitted that from the said evidence, it is apparent that the defendant has not disputed the signature on the compromise. It is submitted that at any rate, since positive plea was taken in the written statement with respect to the documents being forged, thus in case the petitioner wanted to lead evidence then he should have done so at the time when his evidence was being led. It is submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. It is not in dispute that the suit in the present case was filed in the year 2011. The said suit is for declaration and for possession. Other prayers are also made in the said suit. Reliance in the suit was placed upon compromise dated 25.10.2010. In the written statement, which was filed by the present petitioner, it was his plea that the compromise dated 25.10.2010 was a result of fabrication. Once the petitioner has taken the said plea in his written statement, then it was open to him to have led all evidence in support of the said plea till the time his evidence was closed. Admittedly, the evidence of the petitioner was closed and it was only thereafter on 08.08.2023 i.e., after more than 12 years of institution of the suit, that the petitioner had filed an application seeking permission for comparison through handwriting expert. Thus, in effect, the petitioner is seeking to lead additional evidence. Order 18 Rule 17 A of the CPC which provided for production of additional evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence has already been deleted from the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Thus, there is no right to lead additional evidence. Moreover, in the present case, it cannot even remotely be said that the application was filed with due diligence.

6. The trial Court had dismissed the said application vide order dated 21.08.2023 after observing that the present petitioner, who had appeared as DW2, had in his cross-examination admitted that the first two letters of his signature were correct and had further observed that thus, admission had been made by the defendant/petitioner on the aspect of his signature. Be that as it may, once the petitioner had taken the said plea in his written statement, then, the petitioner should have led evidence regarding the same when his evidence was being recorded and the present application which has been filed after his evidence had been closed, cannot be allowed, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Apparently, the application has been moved only to delay the proceedings as the suit had been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs in the year 2011 and one of the prayer in the suit is for seeking possession of the suit property.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil”, reported as (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329, had observed that the High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of court or tribunal subordinate to it. It was also observed in the said judgment that a statutory amendment with respect to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court’s power under Article 227 but at the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court’s jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. It was also observed that the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline.

8. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.

9. It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are only for the purpose of disposing of the present revision petition in which challenge is to the order dated 21.08.2023 vide which the application filed by the petitioner for comparison through handwriting expert has been dismissed and the same should not be construed as an expression of final opinion on the merits of the case and the main case be decided by the trial Court independently, after taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties concerned.

10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.

Petition dismissed.

********