M RAMAIAH MUTHURAYAPPA Vs. NARASIMHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed a suit to declare that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendant nos.2 and 3 dated 17.08.1995 as null and void. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order - XXVI, Rule 10(A) read with Section - 151 of the CPC was filed by the defendant no.2 to send the disputed signatures in the General Power of Attorney dated 25.05.1990, Exhibit D3, to be compared with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff in General Power of Attorney dated 26.03.1995 and in the sale deed dated 18.04.1987 and to furnish a report. The Trial Court by the impugned order allowed the same. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set-aside.

(3.) On hearing the Learned Counsel and on examining the impugned order, I do not find any error in the impugned order that calls for interference.