USHA SHARMA Vs. ROHIT GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 3rd January, 2009 passed by the Court below in Original Suit No.868 of 2005 by which the application 80-C filed by the defendant for a direction upon the plaintiff to write in his own handwriting the contents of paper no.56 Ka and 57 Ka and submit it before the Court so that the writing could be compared with that of the writing in these two applications. I have heard Sri Santosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. The aforesaid Suit had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of agreement to sell. In the said Suit, the revisionist, who was arrayed as defendant, filed an application that the handwriting of the plaintiff in the two applications 56-Ka and 57-Ka said to have been filed by the plaintiff before the Police authorities and which had been filed in the Suit by the defendant be compared with the writing of the plaintiff by a handwriting expert. THIS application was allowed by the Court by the order dated 26th November, 2008, but despite this order, the defendant did not take any steps as a result of which the handwriting could not be compared. Subsequently, the defendant filed another application 80-C that the plaintiff be required to write the two applications in his own handwriting and thereafter the writing may be compared with that in the aforesaid two applications by a handwriting expert, but the Court below has rejected this application on the ground that this is neither necessary in law nor is it necessary in the interest of justice. There is no infirmity in the order impugned since the two applications 56-Ka and 57-Ka had been filed by the defendant and the Court below had earlier passed an order on 26th November, 2008 that the writing be compared with the handwriting of the plaintiff by a handwriting expert, but the defendant did not take any steps. The subsequent application was misconceived and was rightly rejected. The Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed.