MU. TAPASWINI Vs. MU. VRINDAVATI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order dated 28.04.2015, the plaintiff's application under Section 45 and 71 of the Evidence Act and Order 26, Rule 10(A) read with section 151 of CPC has been rejected by the trial Court and the plaintiff has been denied the examination of the impugned document dated 29.05.2010 by handwriting expert, against which this writ petition has been preferred.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law as the plaintiff's signature on the said document is highly disputed and the Court has rejected the application on the ground that Court can compare the disputed signature on itself.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and support the order impugned.