SATGURU PRATAP SINGH @ DHEERAJ Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) The revisionist has preferred this revision against the order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Lucknow in SCC Suit No.141 of 2015, whereby the learned court below has refused to permit the revisionist to get the signature of the opposite party examined by a handwriting expert.

(3.) There is a dispute with regard to rate of rent between the parties and as per the revisionist, the opposite party had issued a rent receipt at the time of commencement of the tenancy but thereafter he did not give any rent receipt. The learned counsel has also referred to a diary the copy of which has been placed on record to show that whenever he paid the rent to the opposite party, the same was entered in the diary maintained by him which also bears the signature of the opposite party. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that since the rent receipt is an important piece of evidence and the opposite party is not admitting his signature over the said receipt, therefore, for deciding the controversy, it is necessary that the signature on the rent receipt allegedly issued by the opposite party be examined by a handwriting expert, so that it may be brought on record that the receipt was issued by the opposite party.