BY THE COURT-This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (herein after referred to as the Act) against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated 6.4.1989, whereby he rejected the application for comparing the signature of the appellant on documents Ex. 2, 15 and 52 and of adding new grounds in the petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under : One Major Raja P. Singh the appellant has filed a divorce petition on the grounds of adultery and cruelty before the District Judge, Jodhpur which was later on transferred to the Family Court, Jodhpur on 19.8.1988. The appellant by application dated 4.1.1989 prayed that the document Ex. 2 dated 13.9. 69 purported to has been written by respondent to one Takhat Singh be compared with the signatures of the appellant and also prayed by another application dated 9.1.1989 that he may be allowed to amend the petition by adding new grounds. The respondent resisted and filed written statement on 12.12.1986 alleging inter alia that the document dated 13.9.1969 Ex. 2 is a forged one and Ex. 15 is the list of ornaments prepared at the time of her daughter Gayatris marriage and Ex. 52 is a photostat copy are of no concern and have no bearing in the case which is pending since 1983.

3. The learned trial Judge of Family Court, Jodhpur dismissed the application dated 4.6.1989 on the ground that signatures can be compared with the admitted signatures of the respondent which are already on record. The application dated 9.1.1989 was rejected on the ground that no useful purpose will be served when as per averments appellant got himself operated in the year 1968 and the alleged child was born in January 1981.

4. Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the court below without considering the true aspects rejected the application merely on the ground of delay.

5. Mr. A.L. Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has raised the preliminary objection that there is no provision in the Act, for filing an appeal against an interlocutory order and as such the same be dismissed as not maintainable.

6. Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention submitted that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order. Mr. Bhoot, has drawn our attention to the decision of Rama Shanker Vs. Mahadev (1) in which their lordships held that an order passed under 0.6 Rule 17 C.P.C. "is the case decided" within the meaning of expression in Section 100 C.P.C. Thus the impugned order can also be challenged in this appeal u/sec. 19 of the Act.

7. The point for consideration is whether allowing or rejecting an amendment amounts to a case decided and is appealable u/sec. 19 of the Act, so it is to be seen whether by the impugned order dated 6.4.1989 the rights of the parties have decided finally or not.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been held by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Gokul Chand (2) that "no appeal he from any interlocutory order which is merely procedural and do not hold the rights and liabilities of the parties, if however, any error, defect or irregularity is found in any interlocutory order it can be taken as a general ground of objection in appeal from final order in the main proceeding." So far as comparison of signatures and handwriting is concerned it is a matter of procedure and does not decide that matter finally, Regarding application dated 9.1.1989 not allowing the amendment Mr. Bhoot, learned counsel for the appellant, has relied on Kishan Co-operative Ltd. Vs. M.S. Ajay Ltd. (3) and contended that an order allowing or refusing to allow and amendment is a case decided Within the meaning of Sec. 115 C.P.C. and as such appeal lies.

9. In the famous case, V.C. Shukla Vs. State (4) the expression interlocutory order was interp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document