Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 21.01.2010 passed by learned trial Court dismissing application of the Petitioner -Plaintiff for directing Special Kanungo/Patwari Muharrir to prepare excerpts of the property in dispute as per interrogatories attached with the application, Annexure P7 and as per High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I, Chapter 9.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, the present suit has been filed by petitioner -plaintiff by taking plea, inter alia, that the land in dispute is joint Hindu family coparcenary property in the hands of Mohinder Dass i.e. Defendant No. 1 and hence, various transfer deeds and sale deeds executed by Mohinder Dass in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 are illegal and null and void being forged and fabricated. Suit was contested by Respondents -Defendants. Issues were framed. Case was fixed for evidence of petitioner -plaintiff. However, talks of compromise started between the parties. Hence, evidence of petitioner -plaintiff could not be recorded and however, the compromise talks failed. Case was fixed for evidence of petitioner -plaintiff when the present application was filed by petitioner -plaintiff for directing Special Kanungo/Patwari Muhrrir to prepare revenue excerpts regarding the property in dispute to prove the nature of property in the hands of Mohinder Dass. The said application was dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.01.2010 against which the present revision petition has been filed.
(3.) A careful perusal of the impugned order shows that the application of the petitioner -plaintiff has been dismissed merely on the ground that the same was filed at later stage. However, it has been explained by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case was adjourned time and again for compromise and however, when the compromise talks failed, on very next day the present application was filed.;