Gujarat High Court
Nitish Pravinkumar Jindal vs Ashok Gopichand Jindal on 10 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9046 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
NITISH PRAVINKUMAR JINDAL
Versus
ASHOK GOPICHAND JINDAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN A SHAH(5412) with
MR SHIVAM B PANDIT ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. CR BUDDHADEV(6707) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DEVAN PARIKH LD SENIOR ADVOCATE with
HARI K BRAHMBHATT(9070) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 10/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950. The petitioner – Original Plaintiff
has prayed for following reliefs in the petition :-
(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit and allow
this petition;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned orderPage 1 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
dated 15.4.2025 (Annexure-A) passed by Ld. Additional
Civil Judge, Vapi on application below Exh. 80 in
Regular Civil Suit No. 76 of 2021, and further be
pleased to grant the application Exh.80, as prayed for,
in the interest of justice;
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
application, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay
the further proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No.76 of
2021 pending in the court of Ld. Additional Civil Judge,
Vapi, in the interest of justice;
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such
other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and
proper, in the interest of justice and equity;
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manan A Shah for the
petitioner and learned senior advocate Mr. Devan Parikh
assisted by learned advocate Mr. Hari K Brahmbhatt for the
respondent.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned senior advocate Mr.
Devan Parikh waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
respondent.
4. Upon request of learned advocates for the respective
parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.
5. The parties are referred to as per the original status in
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
the suit. The plaintiff – petitioner has filed suit for cancellation
of a registered sale deed dated 04.02.2014 executed pursuant
to an alleged power of attorney and the entry mutated in the
revenue record pursuant to a registered sale deed dated
04.02.2014 to be declared as illegal, null and void together
with a relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant
from selling or assigning plaintiff’s undivided portion to any
third person. During the pendency of the oral evidence of
plaintiff, an application Exh. 80 was submitted by the plaintiff
under Order 26, Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). The plaintiff prayed for
sending Exh. 71, 72, 73, 75 and 77 being bank slips and
cheques to FSL for the purpose of comparison and inspection.
After considering the submissions of learned advocates for the
parties, the learned Court below rejected the application on
15.04.2025. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
order, plaintiff – petitioner is before this Court.
6. Learned advocate for the plaintiff – petitioner submitted
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
that the suit land being Survey No. 71, Block No. 95
admeasuring about 14265 sq meters was jointly purchased by
plaintiff and defendant, who is the uncle in relation, by a
registered sale deed dated 08.05.2009 from erstwhile owners
Shaileshbhai Balvwantrai Desai and an entry of the registered
sale deed dated 08.05.2009 was mutated in the revenue
records on 06.07.2009. As defendant is the elder brother of
plaintiff’s father, defendant was managing the properties and
defendant obtained signatures on certain papers. The defendant
also retained passbook of plaintiff’s bank account together with
signed cheque book containing cheques. When a notice from
Mamlatdar office was received on 31st August, 2021, plaintiff
found that pursuant to an alleged power of attorney, the share
of plaintiff has been sold to defendant himself by a registered
sale deed dated 04.02.2014. The plaintiff found that the
defendant has committed a fraud by selling the share of
plaintiff pursuant to the power of attorney which was never
executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant.
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
6.1 It is also submitted that plaintiff has examined Assistant
Manager of Karur Vysya Bank, Surat (Exh. 67) as witness and
the said witness produced original bank pay slips and cheques
vide Exh. 71, 72, 73, 75 and 77. The bank pay slips and
cheques were written in the handwriting of one person and for
bringing the truth on record, an application under Order 26
Rule 10A of the Code for sending the disputed documents to
FSL was filed. It is further contended that the defendant who
was in possession of signed cheques, passbook of plaintiff’s
bank account as well as of his father’s bank account, defendant
took advantage of being elder brother of plaintiff’s father, sold
the suit land to himself and routed the money from the bank
account of plaintiff into his father’s account and from there to
defendant’s account. Considering the question raised by the
plaintiff, the documents are required to be sent to FSL for
comparison of handwriting and inspection thereof. The learned
Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and compared the
figures and words reflected in disputed documents and came to
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
a conclusion that the words and figures appears to be of
different persons. The said findings are not only perversed but
also against the settled position of law.
6.2 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the
petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of
Deepakkumar Jamnadas Prajapati vs. Binaben Shankarbhai
Desai reported in 2025(0) AIJEL-HC 250423.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid
decision has relied upon the decision of Rama Avatar Soni vs.
Mahanta Laxmidhar Das And Ors. reported in (2019) 11 SCC
415.
By relying upon the aforesaid two decisions, it is
contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that in the
cases where genuineness of the signatures on disputed
documents are cropped up, it is necessary to have expert
testimony regarding handwriting, and in such cases, opinion
from handwriting experts are crucial to ensure that truth
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
surfaces on record. It is also submitted by learned advocate for
the petitioner that if the documents are sent to FSL Authority
for comparison and inspection, the rights of the defendants
would not be affected adversely. The report of the FSL
Authority would be helpful to the learned Trial Court for
deciding the controversy. Except above, no other submissions
are made.
7. Per contra, learned senior advocate Mr. Devan Parikh for
respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted
that, on perusal of the impugned order, no illegality is found
in rejecting the application. It is the contention of the learned
Senior Advocate for the respondent that the application for
sending the disputed documents to FSL was submitted after
plaintiff found that he has no case in the proceedings. Learned
senior advocate has taken this Court through certain replies
given by plaintiff in the cross-examination. It is submitted that
plaintiff has admitted in the cross-examination that he has only
six percent share in the suit land and the plaintiff has not
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
lodged any criminal complaint for the alleged fraud and
forgery, plaintiff has not produced any of his income tax
returns for the relevant period, which were important
evidences to establish whether the amount of sale consideration
has been received by plaintiff or not.
7.1 Learned senior advocate for respondent further submitted
that it is not the specific case of the plaintiff that the
defendant has committed forgery and has signed the cheques
and filled up paying slips of his bank account. A statement is
made by the plaintiff in the application that the writings on
the disputed documents appears to be of same person. On this
assertion, disputed documents cannot be sent for inspection
and comparison to FSL Authorities.
7.2 Learned senior advocate for respondent has also referred
Rule 10A of Order 26 of the Code and contended that, only in
the opinion of the Court, if scientific investigation is required,
the Court may issue a Commission directing him to inquire
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
into such question and report thereon to the Court. The
purpose of scientific investigation is not to help the party to
gather evidence.
7.3 Learned senior advocate for the respondent has also
relied on Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (“the
‘Act’ for short”). It is submitted that under Section 73 of the
Act, the Court has power to make disputed and admitted
signature for just conclusion. In the present case, the learned
Court below has exercised its powers under Section 73 of the
Act, and came to a conclusion that the words and figures
appear on disputed documents are of different persons. And
such finding cannot be questioned in writ petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7.4 In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate
has relied upon the decision in the case of Babubhai
Mulchanddas Kapadia vs. Ishwarlal Devchand Kabrawala
reported in 1974 (0) AIJEL-HC 201121 and in the case of Ajit
Page 9 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1997 (0)
AIJEL-SC 741. Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions, it is
contended by learned senior advocate that the Court has power
to compare disputed signatures with the admitted signatures as
power is available under Section 73 of the Act.
8. By distinguishing the decisions relied upon by learned
advocate for the petitioner, learned senior advocate for
respondent contended that in both the decisions, the allegation
was against a specific person whereas in the present case, it is
not the allegation of plaintiff that disputed documents are in
the handwriting of defendant. Except above, no other
submissions are made.
9. I have considered the submissions of learned advocates
for the parties and on perusal of the papers, it appears that
dispute is revolving around Exh. 71, 72, 73, 75 and 77 which
are in the nature of paying slips of plaintiff’s bank account and
the cheques of plaintiff’s bank account together with paying
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
slips of plaintiff’s father’s bank account as well as defendant’s
bank account. The application Exh. 80 is tendered by plaintiff
seeking aforesaid disputed documents to be sent to handwriting
expert of FSL office for comparison and inspection and
thereafter to submit its report. It is noticed by this Court on
perusal of the plaint that plaintiff has asserted co-ownership
rights over the suit land alongwith defendant and other
persons. Defendant, according to plaintiff, is the elder brother
of plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that,
defendant, being the elder brother of plaintiff’s father was
managing the affairs with regard to suit property and the
defendant obtained signatures on certain papers without
making them read. The defendant was also in possession of
passbook and blank signed chequebook of plaintiff’s bank
account. When plaintiff received a notice from Mamlatdar
office on 31st August, 2021, plaintiff came to know that
defendant pursuant to a bogus power of attorney, executed a
registered sale seed dated 04.02.2014 in his name, and,
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
therefore, the present suit came to be filed for cancellation of
the registered sale deed and the mutation of entry pursuant to
the said registered sale deed. The plaintiff, after recording of
his oral evidence, made an application to issue a witness
summons of Karur Vysya Bank. The Assistant Manager of the
said bank during his deposition produced original cheques and
paying slips of plaintiff’s bank account, defendant’s bank
account and plaintiff’s father’s bank account. The said disputed
documents are sought to be sent to FSL authorities for
comparison and inspection.
10. There is no grievance between the parties that in the
application Exh. 80, the plaintiff has alleged that the
handwriting on bank payslips as well as on the cheques are of
one person. The plaintiff has not alleged in the application that
the alleged handwritings are of defendant. The learned Trial
Court while rejecting the application has compared
handwritings on Exh. 71, 72, 73, 75 and 77 and came to a
conclusion that the words and figures mentioned in disputed
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
documents are of different persons. The powers which are
excercised by learned Trial Court is as per settled proposition
of law.
11. The disputed documents which are placed at page Nos.
63 to 67 of the compilation of documents would also suggest
that disputed handwritings are of different persons. Moreover,
in absence of any positive assertion in the plaint as well as in
the application that disputed documents are in the handwriting
of defendant, and finding by learned Trial Court in deciding an
application under Order 26, Rule 10A would not give rise to
challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The
powers under Order 26, Rule 10A can be exercised by Court
only if in the opinion of a Court it is necessary or expedient in
the interest of justice, issue a Commission directing him to
inquire into such question. Thus, it is a discretionary power
given to Court either to issue Commission or to reject issuance
of Commission. If the discretion exercised by learned Trial
Court is within the parameters of law and is not arbitrary or
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9046/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
illegal, High Court would not interfere in such findings.
Findings recorded by learned Trial Court, in my view, are
tentative, so far as the application Exh. 80 is concerned.
Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the order impugned.
I do not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned.
However, at this stage, it would be required to note that the
learned Trial Court while deciding the main controversy shall
not be influenced by the order impugned and shall decide the
controversy strictly on the evidence led by parties and in
accordance with the provisions of law. The learned Trial Court
shall also not be influenced by the observations made by this
Court as the observations are only restricted in deciding Exh.
80.
12. In view of above, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
SHIVANI SHUKLA
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:52:56 IST 2026
