CRP 319/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the orde rs dated 26-5-2010 (Annexure-V) and 28-6-2010 (Annexure-VII) passed by the learn ed Munsiff No. 2, North Lakhimpur in M.S. No. 11 of 2008 rejecting the applicati on of the petitioner for referring the signatures of attesting witnesses in Exbt . 1 to handwriting expert for comparison of his application for adducing his wit nesses after he had already closed his evidence. Considering the nature of the c ase projected by the petitioner, I do not find it necessary to issue notice to t he respondent, and have decided to dispose of the revision petition at the admis sion stage. 2. The material facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly noted at the outset. The respondent instituted Money Suit No. 11/08 before the learned Mu nsiff No. 2, North Lakhimpur against the petitioner for realization of Rs. 1,50, 000/- together with interest @ 16% per annum. The allegations of the respondent in the plaint are that the petitioner, on 18-4-2007, executed an agreement to se ll his Indigo car to him for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/-, out of which he had received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of advance and that the agreement wa s witnessed by Shri Himanka Sonowal and Shri Bipul Bora by putting their respect ive signatures thereon. The petitioner contested the suit by filing his written statement denying therein the execution of the said agreement taking the plea th at the respondent forged the said agreement by putting the signatures of the two witnesses by himself: those witnesses had never signed the agreement in questio n. On 18-11-2008, the petitioner filed an application bearing No. 385/08 before the learned Munsiff for, among others, referring the signatures of the two witne sses to handwriting expert for comparison and opinion. The learned Munsiff by th e order dated 21-1-09 kept the application in abeyance on the ground that the ev idence of the respondent was yet to be completed and his application could be co nsidered after conclusion of the evidence of the parties. It is alleged by the p etitioner that his counsel by misunderstanding his instruction filed an applicat ion before the learned Munsiff on 19-4-2010 stating therein that he would not ad duce any evidence on his behalf. This led the trial court to close the evidence of the petitioner. On 17-5-2010, the petitioner filed another application before the learned Munsiff renewing his prayer for referring the signatures of the afo resaid witnesses to handwriting expert for comparison. The learned Munsiff by th e first impugned order rejected his application. He then filed another applicati on dated 23-6-2010 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for allowing him to adduce his evidence and the evidence of his other witnesses by affidavit . The trial court by the second impugned order rejected his application with an observation that there was no change in the facts and circumstances of his case requiring adduction of his evidence and proceeded to hear arguments on 5-7-2010. Aggrieved by the two impugned orders, this revision is now filed by the petitio ner. 3. Mr. M. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the t rial court has completely failed to appreciate that the closure of the evidence of the petitioner was occasioned by the wrong submission made by his counsel, wh o completely misunderstood his instruction and he did not even sign the applicat ion in that behalf and has in the process acted with material irregularity warra nting the interference of this Court. He further contends that the trial court h as also failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not referring the signatures of t he attesting witnesses of Exbt. 1 to handwriting expert for comparison, which is the very basis of the claim of the respondent: the impugned orders cannot, ther efore, be sustained in law. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is li able to be interfered with by this Court to prevent gross miscarriage of justice . 4. For better appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel f or the petitioner, it will be apposite to refer to both the impugned orders, whi ch are in the following terms: 26-5-2010: Both the parties are present. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff filed Petit ion No. 30/10 with objections against Petition No. 25/10 by the Ld. Advocate for the defendant for referring the signatures of the attesting witnesses of Exhibi t 1 filed by the plaintiff to the Handwriting Expert for examination. Heard both sides. Perused the record carefully. Ld. Advocate for the defendant has submitted that he has already filed P etition No. 385/08 for referring the signatures of the attesting witnesses to th e handwriting expert for examination. But the same has been kept in suspension v ide order dated 21-1-09 by my Ld. Predecessor and further submitted that at this stage examination of the signatures of the attesting witnesses is highly necess ary to prove his case. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff submitted that at this belated stage the prayer of the defendant is not at all tenable in the eye fof law. On perusal I have found that the PW-2 attesting witness and PW-3 scribe at Ext. 1 have admitted their signatures. On the other hand, defendant has not e xamined any witnesses. DWs is closed at the instance of the defendant. Hence exa mination of the signatures of the attesting witnesses would not be necessary for the defendant at this stage. The prayer of the petition is therefore not allowed. Fixed 7-6-10 for argument. Sd/- Shri R. Brahma Munsiff No. 2. North Lakhimpur. 28-6-10: Both the parties are present. Heard both the sides in length on Petition No. 41/10, u/s 151 C.P.C. Perused the record carefully. Ld. Advocate for the defendant has filed the instant Petition with a prayer to review order dated 4-5-10 and allow him to adduce DWs again. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff raised objection and stated t hat the prayer for defendant be rejected. On perusal of the record I have found that DWs is closed at the instance of the defendant vide order dtd. 4-5-10. It is also known from the defendants t hat there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case which is requi red to be adduced before the Court. Hence, the prayer of the Petition be rejected. Fixed 5-7-10 for argument. Sd/- Shri R. Brahma Munsiff No. 2 North Lakhimpur 5. From the impugned orders of the trial court, it is indisputable that it was no less a person than the petitioner himself who closed his evidence. His ca se is that his counsel misunderstood his instructions which resulted in closure of his evidence. This is not substantiated by any material on record or by his c ounsel by filing an appropriate application and/or affidavit. His other case tha t the signatures of the two attesting witnesses in Exhibit 1 should be referred to handwriting expert for comparison has been rightly rejected by the learned Mu nsiff by holding that both the attesting witnesses had already deposed before th e Court admitting their respective signatures appearing in Exhibit 1. The learne d Munsiff, in my judgment, correctly held that there was no change in the facts and circumstances of the case warranting adduction of evidence by the petitioner . For invoking an extraordinary like Article 227 of the Constitution, only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this artic le unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of and flagrant abuse of p ower by the subordinate courts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party. From the two impugned orders, not even wrong decision, not to speak of d ecision resulting from grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of power or g rave injustice, was taken by the trial court calling for the interference of thi s Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. For the afore-mentioned reasons, there is not merit in this revision pet ition, which is hereby dismissed at the admission stage with costs. The trial co urt shall now proceed with the suit at the stage when the revision petition was filed and dispose of the same in accordance with law.