BINA BARMAN Vs. KACHARI PADA MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The said order rejected an application of the plaintiff for appointment of a handwriting expert to challenge the signature on the plea that both in the plaint the evidence-in-chief as also in the cross- examination the plaintiffs had averred and deposed that the signature on the deed was not that of their father.

(2.) In reply, the revisionists submit that the learned court below recorded that the entire evidence already gone against the averments in the plaint and the plaintiffs' claims and that the application by the revisionists, is an afterthought. This, according to the revisionists, shows that the learned court below has prejudged the issue in question.

(3.) The learned court below has failed to do in course of trial, particularly in the light of a statements of the plaintiffs in the plaint, evidence in chief as well as cross examination has consistently maintained that the signature on the alleged gift deed is not that of their father.