Mere admission of signature on a document without admitting its contents does not amount to execution. The burden of proof of the execution of a document is on the party who alleges it.

This appeal under Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent is directed, against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court (Dr. A. S. Anand J.) dated 10-4-1978, in civil suit No. 84 of 1977 and in C. M P. No. 143 of 1978, dismissing the said petition under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and disallowing the prayer of the plaintiff for amending and re-casting the issue.

2. In a suit for partition of joint Hindu family property and for rendition of accounts trending before the learned Judge. the plaintiff moved an application under Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C. By this application, the plaintiff sought amendment of issues Nos. 1 and 2. According to the plaintiff these issues were neither properly framed nor was the burden of proof thereof correctly placed. As the defendants had set up the plea of prior partition, they had to prove the same by adducing evidence. This application was hotly contested by the defendants. Their main objection was that the plaintiff had admitted the execution of the memo of partition and, therefore, he had to prove that there was no partition effected. The learned Judge, however, refused to recast or amend the issues and dismissed the petition.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that the order rejecting the application is not judgment and, therefore, no appeal under the Letters Patent is maintainable. The application has not disposed of any part of the case and has not decided any rights in the suit.

4. The question whether an interlocutory judgment can be subject of appeal under Letters Patent has been the subject matter of some of the decisions of this court as also of other Indian High Courts. The balance of the authority is in favour of the proposition that where the order has the effect of deriding an issue between the parties end the order decides the rights of the parties then that judgment, even though interlocutory, is appealable. In this connection particular reference may be made to some of the decisions of this court reported in A. I. R. 1969 J&K 50 and A.I.R. 1975 J&K 95 and 1975 KLJ 262. According to the said authorities, the meaning of the word "judgment" is a wide amplitude and includes a decision on any substantial question in controversy between the parties affecting their rights even though such order is passed in the course of the trial of the suit. An interlocutory order deciding a question of this kind as distinguished from purely formal and incidental order can also be termed as a judgment. Again in A.I.R. 1969 J&K, 50, the question was considered whether an order rejecting an application under Order 14 rule 5 C. P. C. is a case decided so as to be amendable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The question was answered in the affirmative. It was held that an order rejecting an application under Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C. decides the rights of the parties and is, therefore, case decided. Although the expression "case decided" and "interlocutory judgment" are not synonymous yet the ratio laid down is the same and on principle it can be said that the order rejecting the application under Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C. decides some controversy between the parties or some rights in the case.

5. In the instant case, the order disposing of the application under Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C. has the effect of deciding against the plaintiff his right to prove an issue according to the established procedure and the law of evidence. The order adversely affects the right of the plaintiff and. therefore, in my op in if n is appealable.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appeallant is that the approach of the learned Single Judge in disposing of the application was defective inasmuch as the learned Judge did not take into consideration the rule of evidence which governs the principle relating to the burden of proof. A party who set up the plea of private and prior partition must prove it. But in the instan