SHIV KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. ARUN TONDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) Vide order dated 11.1.2007, the District Forum passed the following order: "On 8.1.2007 argument of learned Advocates of the parties was heard and along with that, argument on the application of complainants for examination by Hand Writing Expert was also heard. Forum has perused all the facts. In the opinion of Forum it appears necessary to pass order on the application for examination by Hand Writing Expert before delivering final judgment. Complainants have filed this application on this ground that opposite party has not admitted account sheets to be in his handwriting and has stated that these documents are incomplete, fabricated and are not in handwriting. Hence the examination by Hand Writing Expert is necessary in order to see as to whether these documents are in the pen of opposite party or not. Opposite party has filed written objection and has argued that examination by Hand Writing Expert is not necessary because opposite party is not a registered share broker. Disputed documents are very material in this case and case of complainants is based on this. Hence unless it is ascertained as to whether the disputed documents are in the pen of opposite party or not, the final disposal of this case cannot be done judicially. In the opinion of Forum application of complainants is fit to be allowed. Complainant's application dated 1.8.2006 is allowed and complainants are directed to get the disputed documents examined by Hand Writing Expert and submit the report within a month. Opposite party is directed to give sample of his hand writing in the Forum in presence of both the Advocates. Put up the case on 5th February, 2007 for further steps."

(3.) Against this a revision petition was filed before the State Commission. State Commission passed the following order: