JAGDISH AND ORS. Vs. RANBIR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this common order I shall dispose of both the aforementioned Civil Revisions as common facts are involved in the said cases. Petitioners are in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution aggrieved against the order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gohana whereby application filed by the plaintiff to produce Fingerprint Expert as witness to examine signatures of DW-1 and DW-2 was allowed.

(2.) Two separate suits were filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking possession by way of specific performance of two different agreement to sell both dated 30.07.2004. The plaintiff has already closed his evidence, wherein he had examined one witness Kartar Singh (PW-2) of the agreement to sell. Defendants/petitioners in their evidence also examined the other two attesting witnesses of the agreement to sell who denied their signatures over the agreement to sell as well as receipt. Thus, the present application was filed by the plaintiff at the stage of rebuttal evidence to examine the signatures of Jai Singh and Dilbagh Singh (DW-1 & DW-2 respectively) who are also the attesting witnesses of the agreement to sell so as to prove that the signatures appended on the agreement to sell Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-2 are theirs. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 15.12.2014 and aggrieved against the same the present revisions) has been filed by the defendants.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned trial Court had committed grave illegality by allowing the application of the plaintiff to examine the handwriting and finger print expert at the stage of rebuttal evidence because the plaintiff had simply closed his evidence and had not reserved his right to lead rebuttal evidence, therefore, prayer was made for allowing the present revision petition for setting aside the impugned order.