GAURAV Vs. PUSHPA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission and also on interim relief. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a pending civil suit i.e. Civil Suit No.74-A/2019, the defendant/petitioner has moved an application saying that the agreement produced by the plaintiff/respondent wherein they have shown rent of the premises @ Rs.5000.00 per month whereas according to the petitioner, it is Rs.1800.00 per month. He submits that the said agreement is fabricated as the signature of the father of the defendant has been fabricated by the plaintiff and, therefore, he wanted to get the opinion of handwriting expert so as to ascertain whether the signature over the agreement is of his father or not. However, the application has been rejected by the Court saying that there is no document available on record in which signature of the father of the defendant is available and it is also admitted by both the parties. Shri Upadhyay submits that in the application filed by the petitioner, he has filed certain documents viz. agreement to sale and copy of sale-deed over which contained signature of the father of the defendant but not denied by the plaintiff in their reply. Accordingly, the reason assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the application is not proper. Considering the aforesaid, let notice be issued to the respondent on payment of process fee within a period of three working days by RAD mode, returnable within four weeks.

(3.) List this matter in the week commencing 11/9/2023. In the meantime, it is directed that the trial Court may proceed with trial but shall not pass any final order in respect of Civil Suit No.74-A/2019.