Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff is in revision against the impugned order dated 20.05.2014 by which its prayer for examining the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert by way of additional evidence has been declined.
(2.) IN brief, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to lease dated 12.05.2009 alleging that lease of 10 years was executed in its favour by the defendants on 12.05.2009 w.e.f. 02.11.2009 to 01.11.2019 and had received Rs.1,35,000/ -, by way of cheque, as the lease money for one year. It is not denied by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the written statement, the defendants categorically denied the execution of the lease deed. The plaintiff examined two attesting witnesses of the lease deed and closed its evidence. The defendants also led their entire evidence and in order to prove that the signatures on the lease deed do not belong to them, they examined Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert. When the case was at the stage of rebuttal and arguments, the plaintiff filed the application for leading additional evidence by producing Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert to prove due execution of the agreement of lease by the defendants. The said application has been declined by the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 20.05.2014.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the evidence sought to be produced now would go to the root of the case and in this regard, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh v. Smt. Rajwant Kaur and others,, 2014(2) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 1138.;