DINANATH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. SUKHDEO NARAYAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order passed by the court below in a pending suit, the petitioner has been directed to give his specimen signatures for comparison with certain signature alleged by the plaintiff-opposite party to be of the petitioner. The petitioner is the son of defendant No. 1 who is opposite party No. 2 to the civil revision application, and had put his signatures on certain documents said to be memoranda of partition between the members of the family. The defendant No, 1 has denied the allegations made in the plaint and also the signatures alleged to be of the petitioner; and notices had been issued to the petitioner and in pursuance thereof he appeared in Court on the 18th July, 1978, and objected to the plaintiff's prayer on the ground that he was not a party to the suit The Court overruled the objection and directed him to give his specimen signatures. The petitioner has now challenged the order by the present revision application.

(2.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that since he is not a party to the suit, he cannot be directed to give his signatures for the purpose of comparison. In this regard, two provisions of law appear to be relevant; (i) Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and (ii) Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court is em- powered to call as a witness any person other than the party to the suit and he may be so summoned to give evidence or to produce a document. The petitioner, therefore, can be asked by the Court to produce a document containing his signature. Section 73 of the Evidence Act has permitted comparison of a disputed signature with the admitted or proved signature and the second paragraph states as follows :