(1.) B. K. Singh, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 5-7-96, Passed by the civil Judge (Senior Division), Sultanpur, whereby the petitioners' application for examination of the signatures by hand writing expert has been rejected and against the order dated 10-9-96, Passed by the Learned district Judge, Sultanpur, by which Petitioners' revision under section 115 CPC has been dismissed, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard the Learned counsel of the petitioners as will as Shri N. K. Seth who has put in appearance on behalf of the State Bank of India, the opposite Party No. 3.
(3.) I have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is to be noticed that in this case the petitioners were the defendants before the Trial Court. It is for the plaintiffs to prove that the receipts bear the signature of the petitioners. The basic legal requirement putting the burden of proof on the plaintiffs has to be discharged by the plaintiffs and not by the defendants. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the defendants in this case ought not to have taken the responsibility of discharging the burden themselves which had to be established by the plaintiffs. In these circumstances the end result of the order does not appear to be incorrect. Besides, the impugned order is merely an interlocutory order whereby no material injustice has been done by the lower courts to the petitioners. The party which is unsuccessful before the trial Court has a right of appeal where all these questions can be urged and seen. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India. The writ petition is ac cordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .