Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing No.719 of 2015 at the instance of the plaintiff against the order seeking leave of the Court to examine the handwriting expert qua writing dated 7.1.1987 at the stage of rebuttal and final arguments when the defendant was leading evidence, has been declined and revision petition bearing No.7564 of 2014 is at the instance of the defendant, whereby, the application moved by the plaintiff for producing the aforementioned document by way of secondary evidence has been allowed without complying with the statutory provisions of law regarding its existence and loss.
(2.) Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the claim in the suit was, seeking following declaration:- "Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner and in possession of House No.8, Friends Colony, Near 22 Numbers Phatak, Patiala on the basis of a Family Partition of the suit property having Municipal Corporation Property No.8750/5-11, fully shown in the site plan attached, total measuring 710 square yards having khewat/khatouni no.858/1611 and having khasra no.473/104 situated in the Revenue Limits of village Lehal which is bounded as under:- East H.No.10 of Mr. Rajiv Ohri West Road North Road South House of Sh. Varinder Bains & T.P.Sehgal AND suit for mandatory injunction for giving proper and necessary direction to the defendant No.1 that he may execute the registered sale deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff as it is already settled/decided in the Family Partition. AND suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, supporters and partymen and anybody else on their behalf from alienating and interfering into the peaceful, continuous, physical uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff over the suit property in question fully mentioned in the heading of the plaint, as the defendant has no right, title, interest, concern or authority over the suit property."
(3.) There is a specific averment with regard to the writing dated 07.01.1987. The defendant in the written statement did not specifically deny of having not appended the signatures on the writing, rather vague denial and stated to be forged and fabricated was taken. It was only when the defendant denied the same in the evidence, the application aforementioned was moved but the same has erroneously been dismissed. Our Court, as per the amendment caused in Order XVIII Rule 2 CPC adopted the amendment caused by Madras High Court granting jurisdiction to the Court for the reasons to be recorded in writing to direct any party to examine any witnesses at any stage. No harm would be caused as per the aforementioned amended provisions of law.;