PAWAN KUMAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 6.3.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Karnal.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that Plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of the contract pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 22.12.2000. Defendant (the vendor) denied the execution of the agreement to sell in the written statement. After issues were framed Plaintiff has led his evidence and produced himself as PW-1 and also produced one of the witness of the agreement to sell Rishi Pal as PW-2. Plaintiffs and Rishi Pal one of the witness of agreement to sell allegedly proved the agreement to sell. Thereafter, Defendants have produced Sat Narain son of Dharam Singh, another witness of the agreement to sell as a DW-2 who has stated on oath that agreement to sell does not contain his signature. Thereafter, Plaintiffs have moved an application before the Court below requesting the Court to permit him to get the signature of the vendor - Sat Narain son of Laxman Dass as well as Sat Narain son of Dharam Singh another witness of the agreement to sell ? DW-2 compared through handwriting and finger print expert in rebuttal. Learned trial Court vide order dated 16.9.2009 rejected the application moved by the Plaintiffs observing therein that Defendant-vendor has denied the execution of the agreement to sell in the written statement, hence, there is no question of granting permission to the Plaintiffs to lead evidence of handwriting and finger print expert in rebuttal. Feeling aggrieved Plaintiffs-Petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing Civil Revision No. 561 of 2010. Petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.1.2010 with liberty to the Petitioners-Plaintiffs to move an application before the trial Court to examine the expert in rebuttal in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jugraj Singh etc. v. Darshan Singh etc.,2000 1 CCC 119 Thereafter, Plaintiffs-Petitioners have moved another application before the Court below requesting the Court to permit the Plaintiffs-Petitioners to examine the expert which too was dismissed vide order dated 6.3.2010.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record accordingly.