CHHOTEY LAL Vs. KIRORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUMENTS have already been heard.

(2.) THIS petition seeks assailing of order dated 17.12.2011 whereby application under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w Section 151 CPC, filed by the respondent, was partly allowed to the extent that he was permitted to lead additional evidence by calling or summoning the record of bank pertaining to account No. 458714, Bank of Baroda, Kirti Nagar Branch, Delhi being operated by the petitioner (the plaintiff in the suit) and also to get his signatures compared with the disputed signatures by the handwriting expert. The petitioner/ plaintiff has grievance to this extent against the impugned order of the ADJ.

(3.) THE respondent challenged the preliminary decree by filing an appeal being RCA 32/2011 in the court of Additional District Judge (Central) 12. During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent herein (appellant in RCA 32/2011) also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, which came to be partly allowed in that the respondent herein, who was the defendant in the suit was permitted to lead additional evidence in the manner as indicated above. The plea that was taken by the respondent herein before the court of ADJ was that he had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 5 CPC on 29.02.2002, seeking better particulars from the bank of the petitioner for the purpose of comparing the alleged signatures of the petitioner with the one appearing on the agreement Ex. DW2/1 alleged to be executed by him with his admitted signature by way of examination and comparison through handwriting expert, but the said application had been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 29.05.2002 reasoning as under: