5V @g HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG AT BIL P R writ petmon (Art. 227) No. 4593/2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mt. T.P.Shwma, J.) Present:- Shri Prakash ’I‘iwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondents not notioed. ORAL- ORDER (passed on 12/08/2011) 1. By this petition under Aru'clc 227 of the Consn’tution of India pedu'oners have challenged the legality and pmpriety of the order dated 13/5/2011 passed by 4* Addinonal District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in civil suit No. 1B] 2007 whereby Court below has rejected the application for examination of document by handwriting expert on the yound that petitioners themselves have admitted the signature over the document and respondents have not stated in their pleading or reply that petitioners have written the contents of the documents only they have pleaded and replied that signed documents were produced by the petitioners. Shii Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the pditioners is heard. PETITIONERS 1. U.P. Sales, dealer of Pent, and Defendants no. 1. White Cement, Ncar Shiv Mandir, Golc Bazar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilspur (C.G.) Thmugh Pmprietor, Smt. Sarita Agrawal, Defendant no. 2 2. Smt. Sarita Agawal, W/o Shri Namndra Agrawal, aged about 51 years, Pmprietor of Pent, and White Cement, Near Shiv Mandir, Gole Bazar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and Disu'ict Bilaepur (C.G.). RESPONDENTS Syndicate Bank, Through Branch Plaintm’ Manager, Syndicate Bank, Main Road, Dayalband, Bilaapur, Tahsil and Distn'ct Bilaspur (C.G.). Defendant no. 3 2. Namndra Agmwal, S/o Ramnath Agrawal, aged about 57 years, Pmpn'etor U.P. Traders, Near Shiv Mandir, Gale Bazar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (Chhatu'sgarh). V \ @ Leamcd counsel for the pcn'n‘oners vehemently argued that document in question has been telied upon by the respondents as genuine but contents of the documents have not wntten by the present petitionexs themfore in the interest of justice it is necessary to examine the contents of documents that who has written or whether pmsent petin'oners have written such documents. Learned counsel 'for the peu'tioners placed reliance in the matter of L3. 'l‘ta'ding Company [M13] and another v. Mankh Kuhn mported in 2010M) M.P.H.T. 219 lD.B.) in which Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that in case of denial of execut'on of sigatum of document it was necessaxy to examine handwriting. Copy of the order impugned, copy of the written statement, copy of the applicau‘on for examination for such document and copy of the application med on behalf ofthe respondents perused. Present petitioners/defendants have specinoally pleaded in their. written statement and application filed for examination of document that at the instance of respondents they have given the aforesaid letterhead with their sipature without any contents and subsequently respondents have forged the aforesaid documents interalia respondents have specihcally and categorically pleaded and replied that present petitioners have produced the signed documents, they have not pleaded or replied that petitioners have written the contents of documents before them or before any person whom they knew and recognize when respondents have not pleaded or smted anything relating to writing of contents ofdoeument by the petitioners. In the present case, respondents have not pleaded or stated that contents of documents have been written by these petitioners but they have pleaded that present petitioners have pmduced the aforesaid documents in question. Production of this paper may be blank in form or in written document has not been denied by the pennoners In these circumstances examination of handwriting is not necessary for Just decrsron of the case Presence of the \ .—3,,_ \ 99/ pctih'oners arc still at liberty to depose relating to such documents which is as per thcir plsading they have End it as a blank paper with their signature. Case of Ins. Trading wmpany (ll/s) . (Supra) is distinguishahk on the munds of facts, I do not hnd any illegality in the onier impuped requiring any interference in exemise of supervismy jurisdiction. Consequently, petiu'on is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No Older as to costs. Sd/— T.P. Sharma Judge 4/