R BALARAM Vs. K DWARKANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions arise from the order passed by the XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, rejecting the revisionist-applicant's application for appointment of a handwriting expert as Commissioner to examine certain documents for comparison of signatures. This application was moved in the respective original suits. The Trial Court dismissed the applications taking the view that the suit is of 1991. The application had been made after completion of plaintiff's evidence and defendant also having led his evidence. He has also observed that in both the applications as well as in the affidavit, it has not at all been whispered as to which documents in particular are to be referred. The Court has also found that so far as the agreement to execute the sale deed is concerned, signature is not denied, which are contained therein. The defendant's plea has been that plaintiff has not been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It rejected it on the ground that the prayer also in application is vague and that it appears to have been made to delay and drag the legal proceedings.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved from that order, the revisionist-applicant that is the plaintiff has come up before this Court in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that he had to prove certain signatures on certain endorsements. The Trial Court had considered no doubt various circumstances, and opined that the application was primarily meant to delay the proceedings and after the closure of the proceedings, it also found that primarily the agreement so far as signing on agreement is concerned, there is no dispute about it. It had full jurisdiction to allow the application or to reject it. Even if for a moment it be taken that there is some error in the rejecting of the application, in case revisional jurisdiction is invoked, it is the duty of the revisionist-applicant first to satisfy all the ingredients of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. One of the ingredients necessary or conditions precedent is it has to be established that the order impugned amounts to case decided. Then further he has to show that the order is not appealable to this Court. Thirdly, he has to show that the order suffers from jurisdictional error, either refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested or usurpation of jurisdiction not vested or at least it must be shown that the Court below has acted illegally with material irregularities in exercise of jurisdiction.