High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 08 JH CK 0798

Neelkanth Yadav vs Dilip Yadav

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 13 August 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C. M. P. No.696 Of 2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 341 words

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner.

1.

The defendant No.1/ petitioner has preferred the instant CMP against the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.)-VII, Giridih, in Title Suit No.53 of 2011 (Original Suit No.799 of 2019) by which the application of the plaintiff for appointment of Handwriting Expert has been allowed.

2.

Plaintiff / sole Opp. Party filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the petitioner/ defendant for the sale of Plot No.2326 at Village- Karihari, District- Giridih.

3.

As per the case of the plaintiff, petitioner /defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit land for a total sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and executed an unregistered agreement of sale on 29.10.2008 by putting his LTI in the presence of the witnesses.

4.

Case of the defendant is that the said agreement of sell was forged and fabricated. In order to ascertain the veracity of the rival plea, the learned Court below appointed a handwriting expert as the plaintiff had right to bring the best evidence on the point.

5.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Stamp paper was purchased at Hyderabad, whereas, the place of agreement has been shown at Village- Karihari, District- Giridih.

6.

While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in appeal against the order which has been passed by learned Court below and only in exceptional and extra-ordinary circumstances, the impugned order is interfered with.

7.

Here, the suit is for specific performance of contract. Agreement of sale has been adduced into evidence and marked as Ext.1, but without objection of the defendant. Further, since the veracity of the LTI appearing on the agreement of sale is under challenge, in order to ascertain the plea that it was forged and fabricated, therefore, the learned Trial Court has ordered for handwriting expert.

I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, as such, the instant CMP stands dismissed. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.