BRIJ NARAIN Vs. KANCHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is against the order dated 8. 1. 1991, by which the application of the defendant-petitioner under O. 16 R. 1, C. P. C. , for permitting him to examine the hand writing expert for the purposes of certain signatures on Exhibits A/9 and A/10, was rejected by the trial court. The necessary and relevant facts for the present purposes are that a suit for eviction was filed in 1974 on the ground of default. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff was permitted to amend his plaint by pleading that the defendant has carried out material alteration in the suit premises without permission of the land lord-plaintiff furnishing him additional ground for eviction against the tenant. It appears from the order on application moved by the plaintiffs on 6. 5. 1989 for producing certain documents on record, the court allowed both the parties to lead evidence in respect of the documents produced by both the parties. On 6. 1. 1990, the plaintiff recorded his evidence and there after opportunity was granted to defendant on 19. 3. 1990, 20. 03. 1990, 2. 06. 1990 and 20. 08. 1990. On 20. 08. 1990, the defendants' evidence was closed and the case was fixed for final arguments on 7. 9. 1990. On 7. 9. 1990, arguments could not take place and on the next date of hearing, that is, on 11. 11. 1990, the defendant moved an application for permitting him to examine a handwriting expert for the purposes of proving certain signatures on documents mentioned Ex. A/9 and A/10, under 0. 16 R. l, C. P. C. The trial court, after referring to the proceedings till that day, has concluded that the application of the defendant does not appear to be bonafide and appears to be intended to further prolong the final disposal of the suit. He, therefore, rejected the application.

(2.) HAVING considered the contentions raised by learned counsel before me, and perused the order under Revision, I am of the opinion, that the trial court has committed no error in refusing the application of the defendant at that related stage, particularly when he had all the opportunities to call in the hand writing expert for the purpose of proving certain signatures on Exhibits A/9 and A/10, which he now purports to prove, after closure of his evidence and after the case has been fixed for final bearing twice over.