Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) The grievance of the plaintiff-petitioner in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 11.01.2010 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for directing respondents No.1 and 4 to 6 to give their thumb-impressions for the purpose of comparison on the agreement to sell dated 23.05.2003 was declined by the trial Court.
(2.) Briefly the facts of the case may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23.05.2003 in respect of land measuring 8 Kanals 12= Marlas situated in the revenue Estate of Noormahal, Tehsil Phillaur. The claim of the plaintiff was controverted by the defendants and it was pleaded by them in the written statement that the agreement to sell was forged and fabricated document and it did not bear their thumbimpressions.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: "(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement dated 23.05.2003 executed by the defendants No.1 to 6 in favour of the plaintiff OPP (ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for OPP. (iii). Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract OPP (iv). Whether the suit is within limitation OPP (v) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit OPD (vi) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form OPD (vii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties OPD (viii) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands OPD (ix) Whether the plaintiff is barred by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit OPD (x) Relief.;