vakalath in the present case the defendant-respondent has affixed his thumb impression. If the records are called for and the said written statement, vakalath and agreement of sale is sent for expert opinion the true facts will come to light. The Court below by the order impugned had dismissed both the Interlocutory Applications observing that the proof of signatures of the parties to an agreement is not the sole basis of proving the due execution of the agreement. Even if disputed signatures are found to be in comparison with admitted signatures that by itself would not prove due execution of the document. Execution of the document has to be proved by way of other attending circumstances. In the same manner merely because signatures being denied by the defendants on the agreement of sale would not by itself render the execution as not proved. If the plaintiff is able to demonstrate with substantive and cogent evidence regarding the circumstances that has resulted in execution of the agreement, he can have relief from the Court. It is observed that, the I.A.No.X to summon the records in the different case is nothing but needless exercise in futility. Accordingly, the Court had dismissed both the applications.
