PERMOD KOHLI,J - (1.) NOTICE of this revision was sent to the respondent. As reported by the Registry, respondent has been duly served. None appears. He is set ex parte.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners are plaintiffs in the suit for possession of the shop shown as red in the site plan claiming to be the owners of the shop. It has been alleged that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/ - and a rent note dated June 30, 3002, was also executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners. It is further mentioned that the defendant could not carry on the business and possession of the shop was surrendered after receiving Rs. 35,000/ - from the plaintiff through a cheque dated October 19, 2004. The defendant also executed a receipt on the same date acknowledging receipt of the amount and surrender of possession. According to the allegations made in the plaint, the defendant, thereafter, forcibly took over the possession of the shop on October 24, 2004, with the help of anti -social elements and in connivance with the police demanding more money.
(3.) THE defendant denied the execution of the rent note and also the receipts (Exs. P -18 and 19). Though, the evidence has been led to prove these documents. The plaintiff also moved an application under Section 45/73 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking a direction for personal appearance of the defendant in the Court for giving his thumb impressions and specimen signatures for comparison with the disputed documents by the Expert.;