•%• •• 'A ^.^te^ :: i"^ .••*' ^t^t\y*r //ij[**' ^y l^-"' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SecondApDeaI Ns-_ ^r^- SSR9f9Benc!i Of 2006. APPELLANTS DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS ^-\. DaUram, aged 48 years, son ofVishram, 2y Baliram, aged 50 years, son ofVisliram, Both residgnt of Village Salkhan, TahsU Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa (Clihattisgarh), VE R SU S 1..' •' . . :-1. Radheshyam,sonofKhobhiRam, aged58years,residentofVillageSaIkhan, . District Janjgir - Champa (Chhattisgarh), PLABNTIFF 2.^State of Chhattisgarfi, ThTough Collector Janjgir - Chslmpa. DEFENDANT N0. 3 ^PPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CWVL PROCEDURE XI-HC-78 *41*1^Tai»ll<*) 3^'^fraRTO, »Tfl<rl'IS,Rldiy^ . .^.A.^.^-.^ ^[200 3ii^s>i 4a<n (yt'isi<<liT) sii^r^rf^iN! (WTSIR^TsbHI* S%IWBf^(T3n^T <til<lFM<fl-l t1l<HclTfftel^t'<l"l^;K ^ari^iTsn^T 30.11.2006 Appellants by 8iri H.B.^grawal, leamed Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate.| Heard on admission. The defendants/appeltar|ts Appeal, being aggrieved by 12.08.2006 pcssed in Cwi! S.R.Baryare< Additional Distri^ Bilaspur whereby the Fir^l defendants/appellants a9dinst March 2W5 in Civil Suit No. 2-4 have preferred this Second ^he judgment and decree doted Apjpeal . 67-A of ZOOS by Shri :t Judge, Janjgir, Civil District '^t Appeal preferred by the the judgment and dacree dated 30 of 1997 was dismissed. Plaintiff/respondent No.|- specific performance of contra|st. l/ appellant-Daliram had entere|d 17.06.1996 to sell land Kh. No. trial Court held that ths defenckmt the afor'esaid land to the plainti|ff performance of contr-act agaifist herein. The obove finding of fa^t •Radheshyam had filed a Suit for atleging that the defendanf No. into a contract vide Ex.P.1 dated P442, area 1.16 acres To him, The No.l-Dalirom had agreed to setl and passed a decree for specific the defendant No.l/appeflant ' /• was affirmed in First ^ppeol. / / 'Mi II ttil 5 XI-HC-78 3^'^qraTcra', aiTfi^'is, (qMiyy s-ft-^'?' a-^9- *11*1WI Stl*11t> ^200 6 3ii^i <4a<*» (ytg°"tir) sii^rv! R^i* (raT3TI^Ts»i*li» ?T(iraTH{?(T3Tl^?r ^^ ctii<ifa41-i *ii*inT¥tei^t<Ri«it ^3lR|IT3n^?T Siri H. B. Agr'awol, learne|d of the appsllants contended tha1| pleoded before the tower Court| 17.06.1996 did not bear his sign^ture both the Court-s below have er-rfed report of the hcnd-writin9 experjt' bear the signoture of the defencfant that the admitted signatures of| wr'iting expert in Court before 341 was urged by the lear'ned counse!| Sr. Counsel appear'ing on behalf the defendant No.l/appellant had that the document &< P-1 dated ;. It was also contended that ed in not placing reliance on the that the document Ex.P.l did not No.l-Daliram and not ensuring Oaliram were taken by the hand- ;nding the opinion. No other point for the appellants. fr4ffl Upon a careful perusal of by both the Courts below, it is D.W.No.3 is not o qualified obtain any trcining or degree also cdmitted that he did not Daliram taken in his presence, in| could not say whether the standa| by him pertain to Daliram or not presence. As agsinst this, He Oaliram had affixed his signatu, Kanhaiya. Oatiram, &W/1 also scribe of the document. PlaiiTl execution of document Ex. P-1 by 1 the judgment and decree passed |rystal clear that Ulhas S. Aathle han|dwriting expert since he did not any recognized institution. He Iget the admitted signatures of Court. He also admitted That he s|*d signatures S-l to 5-7 examined l|>ecause they were not taken in his tralat DW/2 also odmitted that ^es on the document written by jadmitted that Kanhaiya was the lairritiff Radheshyam has proved the Etoliram by examining himself and XI-HC-78 ail^r^rRHi* (rar3n^?Tst»iw &(• TS? "iO'ifld'4, ®Tfl<f'ls,tsicll^y S.A- lU^- .^^ 3- tfl*lcllSb*llcb ^ 200^- 3TT^?ri4^* (yft^si^ff) ?^TRKnf?(T3I1^T z. Bodhram PW/1. the attestirg wi both the Court-s below were reliancs on the report Ex.P.l a expert Ulhas 5. AatHe O.W.3. !'ness. In this view of the matter, wfiolly justified in not placing any id the testimony of hand-wr-jting In this view of the mattelr'. that no substantial question o-j Appeal. Consequently, this Secorjd of admission. M.C.P.No.962 of 2006 for| 2(X)6 for out of turn hearing th^ order as to costs. chi'iifrt'ifl-f tiiiidTffteiA<Ri'h;i< ^sri^iTsn^r •', I am of the considered opinion law is involved in this Second ^ppeal is dismissed at the stcge gront of stay and I.^.No.3215 of case also stand disposed of. No Sd/- \ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge i"