MOHINDER SINGH Vs. SATNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 6.3.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Rajpura, whereby, an opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting and finger print expert has been treated as nil.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 3.2.1995. Respondents-plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed vide order dated 11.1.2017. Written statement to the amended plaint was filed by petitioners-defendants on 16.3.2016 and thereafter replication to the written statement was also filed on 12.5.2016. Issues were framed on 14.7.2016 and the case was fixed for plaintiffs' evidence on 22.7.2016. The handwriting and finger print expert, namely, Sh. R.V. Vashisht was examined by the plaintiffs as PW-9 on 6.1.2017. The petitioners-defendants moved an application for cross-examination of said witness, which was allowed vide order dated 23.1.2017. Said witness came present on 6.1.2017 but he could not be cross-examined and the opportunity to cross-examine handwriting and finger print expert was treated as Nil vide order dated 6.3.2017, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners-defendants will suffer an irreparable loss if they are not allowed to cross-examine handwriting and finger print expert, namely, Sh. R.V. Vashisht. Learned counsel further submits that the mistake on the part of petitioners-defendants was bona fide and no prejudice would be caused to the either party. Learned counsel prays that one effective opportunity be given to the petitioners-defendants to cross-examine handwriting and finger print expert, namely, Sh. R.V. Vashisht and the petitioners are also ready to compensate the other party in monetary terms.