SANT LAL Vs. MANGAL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the learned court below permitting the plaintiffs to lead additional evidence has been impugned by defendant No.1 before this Court.

(2.) Briefly the facts, as are available on record are that a suit was filed by respondents No.1 to 4/plaintiffs for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.6.2004. It was alleged that the agreement was executed by Gajraj Singh on behalf of Sant Lal. As part of the suit property was sold on 30.6.2005 and release deed was executed for part of the property on 27.7.2005, challenge in the suit was also made to these deeds as well. The suit was filed on 4.8.2005, in which the issues were framed on 10.11.2008. The evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by order of the court on 23.10.2012, despite opportunity having been granted by this Court. The evidence of the defendants was closed on 13.3.2013. It was thereafter that the plaintiffs filed application seeking permission to lead evidence in rebuttal or in the alternative as additional evidence. Learned court below while declining the prayer for rebuttal evidence, allowed the same evidence to be led as additional evidence. The order has been impugned in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned court below while permitting the plaintiffs to lead additional evidence in the form of handwriting and finger print expert and Oath Commissioner, who attested the affidavit Ex.PW1/A, is totally erroneous, as the plaintiffs did not produce any evidence on record to prove the agreement to sell. Crossing the limits the learned court below had even directed the petitioner and other defendants to produce DW2-Rai Singh, DW3-Deen Dayal and DW4-Leela Ram before the court to give their specimens handwritings and the digits of the date for comparison with the questioned documents.