ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') is aggrieved of the order dated 16.05.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Metropolitan City, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the trial court) whereby the application at the instance of the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC was allowed and a handwriting expert, Dr. Dinesh Shetty, by whom the plaintiff had purportedly got the disputed promissory note dated 11.09.2005 allegedly executed by the defendant privately examined, summoned to appear before the court as a witness. The trial court also directed that the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-F, Jaipur appear before it with the record of the VAT returns of the defendant filed before him for the purpose of matching the signature of the defendant on the promissory note dated 11.09.2005.
(2.) Mr. Prahlad Sharma, appearing for the defendant, has submitted that earlier an application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed by the trial court on 31.05.2011 wherein the court has held that there was no occasion to summon the VAT returns filed by the defendant before the Commercial Taxed Department because the admitted signature of the defendant were available on the written statement as also the 'vakalatnama' authorising his counsel to appear in the suit before the trial court. He submits that the plaintiff was free to move an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for having the promissory note dated 11.09.2005 examined by a handwriting expert employed with the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is submitted that in the event the order dated 16.05.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Metropolitan City, Jaipur were to be sustained, the defendant would be prejudiced as the plaintiff's professionally engaged handwriting expert would definitely support the plaintiff's case of the promissory note dated 11.09.2005 having been signed by the defendant.
(3.) Mr. Satish Khandelwal, appearing for the plaintiff, has supported the impugned order dated 16.05.2012 passed by the trial court.;