Smt. Kanika Biswas vs Ashalata Biswas & Ors on 21 August, 2025

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Smt. Kanika Biswas vs Ashalata Biswas & Ors on 21 August, 2025

Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

   Sl.7
21.08.2025

Court No.6
BP

C.O. 2964 of 2025

Smt. Kanika Biswas
Vs.
Ashalata Biswas & Ors.

Mr. Soumyadeep Biswas
..for the petitioner

This application under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is at the instance of the pre-emptee

in a proceeding under Section 8 and 9 of the West Bengal

Land Reforms Act, 1955 and is directed against an order

being no.11 dated 27th March, 2025 passed by the learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Krishnagar, Nadia

(in charge) in Misc. Pre-emption Case No. 28 of 2023.

By the order impugned the application filed by the

petitioner herein praying for appointment of a handwriting

expert for the purpose of comparing the signature of the

opposite party no.1 in the pre-emption application along

with the admitted signature of the opposite party no.1

stood rejected. In an identical pre-emption case filed by

the opposite parties herein against another pre-emptee a

similar question arose and this Court by an order dated

12th August, 2025 in C.O. 2931 of 2025 dismissed the

said civil revisional application with the following

observations:

2

“3. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the learned trial Judge rejected the
application for appointment of the handwriting expert only
on the ground that the Court after comparing the
signature of Ashalata Biswas, that is the opposite party
no.1 as appearing in the preemption application with that
of a specimen signature taken in Court, found that both
the signatures are of the same and identical person.

4. Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that though the Court has the power to
use its own eyes for the purpose of comparing the
disputed signature with the admitted signature, but it is
always prudent on the part of the Court to appoint an
expert in the field for the purpose of comparison of the
disputed signature with the admitted one. In support of
such contention he has placed reliance upon Section 45 of
the Evidence Act.

5. Mr. Biswas also relied on the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi
Administration) Vs. Pali Ram reported in AIR 1979 SC 14
and a decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of
Joydeb Dutta Vs. Atin Law reported in 2016 (3) CalLJ 382,
in support of his contention that in case a dispute is
raised with regard to a signature, comparison is to be
made by the handwriting expert and not by the Court in
exercise of power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.

6. The opposite party no.1 to 6 herein, filed an
application under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal
Land Reforms Act, 1955 which is registered as (Misc.
Preemption) Case No.29 of 2023. Petitioner filed an
application praying for appointment of a handwriting
expert for the purpose of comparing the signature of
Ashalata Biswas, that is the opposite party no.1, who is
the petitioner no.1 in the preemption case with the
specimen signature of the opposite party no.1 to be taken
in Court for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the
signature of the opposite party no.1 as appearing in the
preemption application is that of the opposite party no.1.

7. The ground on which such an application for
appointment of a handwriting expert was filed is that the
petitioner believes that Ashalata Biswas did not put her
signature on the preemption application and she did not
file such application. The reasons for such belief is that
the opposite party no.1 used to regularly visit the house of
the petitioner and upon enquiry, she would divulge that
she had not filed any application for preemption. The
application for appointment of a handwriting expert was
filed on the aforesaid ground.

3

8. The application for appointment of a handwriting
expert was contested by the opposite parties by filing a
written objection thereto. It has been specifically stated in
the said application that Ashalata Biswas along with her
sons, that is the opposite parties no.2 to 5 filed the
preemption application and all of them signed in the
application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land
Reforms Act upon depositing the entire consideration
money before the learned trial Judge. It was specifically
denied that the opposite party no.1 used to regularly go to
the house of the petitioner herein and upon being asked
the opposite party no.1 told the petitioner that she did not
file any case before the Court or that the signature of the
opposite party no.1 is questionable.

9. It is not in dispute that apart from the opposite
party no.1, the opposite parties no.2 to 5 also joined the
opposite party no.1 in filing the application for
preemption. The petitioner has also not disputed that the
other opposite parties filed the application for preemption.

10. Since a dispute was raised with regard to the
signature of the opposite party no.1 herein, the opposite
party no.1 was directed to be present in Court and she
was asked as to whether she had filed the preemption
case also whether she has signed on the preemption
application.

11. The learned trial Judge has specifically recorded
in the impugned order that the opposite party no.1 never
denied her signature on the plaint. Such finding of fact
recorded in the impugned order could not be controverted
by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner before
this Court. The learned trial Judge directed the opposite
party no.1 to put her signature upon a blank paper and
thereafter compared the same with the signature of the
opposite party no.1 as appearing in the preemption
application. The learned trial Judge after making a
comparison of the signatures found that the signature of
the opposite party no.1 in the plaint and admitted
signature are similar and no discrepancy is found in both
the signatures.

12. The learned trial Judge further recorded that the
application for handwriting expert was filed by the
petitioner herein at the time of peremptory hearing only
for the purpose of delaying the trial of the instant suit. It
was further recorded by the learned trial Judge in the
impugned order that the opposite party no.1 is a lady aged
about 79 years who cannot walk properly. For all the
reasons as aforesaid this Court holds that the learned trial
Judge was right in rejecting the application praying for
appointment of the handwriting expert.

4

13. In Pali Ram (supra), one Tekchand stated that
Exhibit-21/F was in Pali Ram’s handwriting when he
made statement before the police. In his statement during
committed proceedings, he resiled from it. It was held that
the said document is undoubtedly a vital link and has an
important bearing on the case as Pali Ram himself
appears to be an accused. In the peculiar facts situation of
that case it was held that although there is no legal bar to
the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed
writing with the admitted writing even without the aid of
the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should
as a matter of prudence and caution hesitate to base his
finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which
forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a
person accused of an offence solely on comparison made
by himself. It was further held that it is therefore not
advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task
of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one
to find out whether the two match with each other and the
prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of
an expert.

14. The said decision being distinguishable on facts
cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. In Joydeb Dutta
(supra), the defendant in his written statement in
paragraph 2(c) has specifically stated that the signature
appearing in the forged part which resembles that of the
defendant is not his signature. The defendant had
admitted that there is similarity in the signature
appearing on the left side bottom of Exhibit-1, but
however, the defendant in his written statement as well as
in his affidavit-in-chief has stated about the resembles of
the signature but did not state anything about the
dissimilarities. On such facts, the Coordinate Bench held
that it was the duty of the Court to appoint handwriting
expert the disputed signature of the petitioner.

15. The said decision is also distinguishable on facts
and the same cannot be applied to the case at hand.

16. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.”

The said decision shall squarely apply to the fact of

the case on hand.

In view thereof, C.O. 2964 of 2025 stands

dismissed.

There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
5

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance

of usual legal formalities.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)