KASHMIR SINGH Vs. MAHLA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated October 7, 1986, the plaintiff filed an application for permission to examine a document expert in rebuttal. The request was declined by the trial Court vide order dated January 31, 1994. It was observed that the signatures of the plaintiff were taken in the court on the application moved by the defendant No. 1 on April 15, 1993. He had raised no objection at that time. Thereafter, Anil Kumar Gupta, the document expert had appeared as DW-2. He had been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination. Thus, the petition was dismissed Aggrieved by the order, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition. It was admitted on February 21, 1994. Proceedings before the trial Court have remained stayed since then.

(2.) Mr. Sandeep Khunger counsel for the petitioner submits that the onus of proving the execution of the agreement was on the plaintiff. The defendant-respondent having produced a handwriting expert, the plaintiff had a right to rebut his evidence by producing another expert.

(3.) Mr. M.K. Dogra learned counsel for the defendant-respondent contests this claim.