RAJU RAM Vs. JAWAHAR LAL VISHWAKARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE plaintiff in a suit for eviction is the petitioner in this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was presumably filed by the plaintiff, acting through his father, as his power of attorney. In the written statement, the defendant, inter alia, raised a plea that the plaintiff was not behind the suit and the father of the plaintiff had forged the signature of the plaintiff and had instituted the suit.

(3.) IT appears to me that the trial Court has acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in directing the sending of the vakalatnama and the power of attorney to a handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff. In the nature of the suit, such an examination is clearly unnecessary. That apart, evidence in the suit has been concluded. Even though the defendant had raised a plea in the written statement, regarding the propriety of the filing of the plaint the defendant did not pursue that plea until the filing of the present application, after the suit was posted for arguments. That apart, the Court below has thought it proper to direct the plaintiff to be examined in the suit. That obviously is more than sufficient to clear any doubt that may be there in the mind of the Court. After all, the plaintiff may be able even to own up the plaint. In my view, it is neither necessary nor expedient in the circumstances of the case to allow the belated application made by the defendant.