By means of this writ petition the petitioners had filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed being Suit No. 469 of 1984 on the ground that the said sale deed was not executed by them and by presenting impostor in their place sale deed has been executed, therefore, the said sale deed be cancelled. In the said suit written statement etc. have been filed and the issues have also been framed. At the stage of evidence the plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application for calling for expert report with regard to verification of thumb impression on the sale deed and the petitioners' thumb impression. The expert report was called for. The expert submitted its report. The petitioners also filed an application to call for the expert for recording statement.
It is submitted that at the time of filing of the report by the expert the defendants were granted liberty to file an objection which they did not file. Then at the time of recording of statement of the expert, the defendants again were given time to cross examine the expert, which was not done and the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners is concluded. Now at the stage of evidence of the defendants an application has been moved for calling for a fresh report of an expert, which was rejected by the trial court against which revision was filed which was allowed. It is submitted that once a report is on the record, calling for a fresh report is totally uncalled for and the revisional court by allowing the defendants to call for a fresh report had acted contrary to law.
The matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date.
Learned counsel for the petitioners will take steps for service of notice upon the respondents within a week.
List after service of notice.
Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned order dated 26.7.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2013 shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2014 SKM