M N BHASKAR RAO Vs. MAYANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance and consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, they filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10(A) read with Section 151 CPC seeking to refer the agreement of sale � Ex.P6, the written statement, the examination-in-chief and cross of DW1 bearing the signature of DW1 to the handwriting expert to examine whether the signature in the agreement of sale and written statement are one and the same. By the impugned order, the same was rejected. Hence, this present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the appointment of the handwriting expert is necessary in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further pleaded that the factum of the vakalath of the defendant being missing from the records of the Trial Court is also an additional consideration as to why this document is required to be sent to the handwriting expert.

(3.) ON hearing both the counsel and examining the impugned order, I'm of the considered view that appropriate reliefs are to be granted. In support of the application, it is stated in the affidavit that appointment of handwriting expert is just and necessary for the adjudication of the suit. It is further stated that the vakalath of the defendant is missing from the records of the court and that the defendant has not produced any other original document to compare his signature with the agreement. Therefore, in order to prove the execution of the agreement of sale, it is necessary that the accompanying application be allowed. The Trial Court accepted the plea of the defendant on the ground that the appointment of handwriting expert was wholly unnecessary.