Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri K.L Grover, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged to order passed by Revisional Court on application, Annexure-5, paper No. 18-Ga, which has been rejected by Revisional Court vide its order dated 3rd December, 2001. The Court has observed that since proceedings are of revision, in case the Court feels that it is expedient and in the interest of justice, it will seek the expert's opinion regarding the alleged signature of the revisionist on the memo of revision and Vakalatnama. At present, it is not necessary and, therefore, he has rejected the application.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Grover has argued that since the matter goes to the root of the maintainability of the revision itself, the authority should have required to consider this question at the first instance before entering into the merits of the case. Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has made a statement that the Revisional Court vide its order dated 14th February, 2002 has already held that once question of maintainability has been raised, it is the duty of the Revisional Authority to decide that question.;