- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This is a revision under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 15-11-2000 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijnor in Original Suit No. 172 of 1983. Three orders were passed on that date. However, in this revision the learned Counsel has challenged the orders passed on applications 506-C and 507-C only.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are as follows: THE Opposite Party No. 1 filed the suit for the dissolution of partnership and accounting which is Suit No. 173 of 1983 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bijnor. THE defence taken by the revisionist is that the accounting had already been done and partnership has been closed long back. This suit for accounting is not maintainable. In support of the contention, the defendant revisionists filed photo copies of the returns submitted in the sales tax and Income Tax Department which are also alleged to have been signed by the plaintiff. THE photo copies of the extracts of khatas were also filed. THE statement of the plaintiff was recorded and in cross-examination documents were put to him. He has denied the signatures on the returns and also on the copies of the khatas. This statement was given by the plaintiff on 24-10-2000. On 31-10-2000, the defendants revisionists moved two applications 506- C and 507-C with the prayer that original returns and khatas which have been filed in the sales tax and Income Tax Department may be summoned and the specimen signature of the plaintiff-opposite party may be taken and may be got compared by the Hand Writing Expert. Both these applications have been rejected by a very short order by the learned trial Court only on the ground that the suit is old. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred. I have heard Sri M. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Sri V. K. Rai, learned Counsel for the opposite parties. Regarding the delay in filing of the applications, it is contended by Sri M. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the revisionists that the Opposite Party No. 2 filed separate written statement. He moved an application for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator which was rejected. Against that order he preferred First Appeal From Order in the High Court and the proceedings remain stayed till 1998; that the revisionists never delayed the proceedings nor sought any adjournment and, therefore, rejection of the applications of the revisionists on the ground of delay is not justified.
(3.) IT is contended that in the interest of justice, the applications should have been allowed; that without papers being summoned and signature being examined by hand writing expert, it cannot be decided whether the partition had already been taken place or not; that these documents is the most important evidence in possession of the revisionists which have been shut down by the trial Court. Opposing the revision, it has been argued that the revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable in accordance with the provisions as was enforced at the time when the revision was filed. It has been contended that second proviso to Section 115 CPC provides that the order shall not be reversed except where: (a) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.;