Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantdefendant No.2 submitted that there was an emphatical denial of execution and registration, much less, receipt of sale consideration viz-a-viz sale deed dated 21.03.1989. The other attesting witness, namely, Gulzari Lal, Lambardar, who allegedly identified the witness, had died, but Ashok Kumar, the attesting witness, did not prove the execution of the Will. PW-1 Arvind Kumar, when appeared in cross-examination, stated that he did not identify Arjun Singh, even Arjun Singh in cross-examination denied the execution of the sale deed. In view of such denial, the onus was upon the plaintiff to discharge by proving the signatures of Arjun Singh. Having failed to avail the services of any Expert, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Before the lower Appellate Court, an application for additional evidence for taking the assistance of an Expert for examination of the signatures and thumb-impressions on the sale deed viz-a-viz admitted signatures of Arjun Singh was submitted, but the same, vide order dated 06.02.2013, has erroneously been dismissed, though in the memorandum of appeal, it was alleged that the aforementioned application remained undecided. The aforementioned order can always be assailed by taking the aid of Order 43 Rule 1A CPC, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the concurrent findings by allowing the application for additional evidence so that chaff is
