Milap Chandra Jain, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner dated August 18, 1993 by which he has rejected the plaintiff-petitioners' application dated May 26, 1993. The facts, of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) In the year 1983, the plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for the cancellation of the sale-deed. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, it was dismissed by the trial court on December 1, 1990. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal in the court of the District Judge, Bikaner. By his judgment dated November 27, 1992, the learned District Judge remanded the case to the trial court with directions that the trial court will afford an opportunity to the plaintiffs to take the photographs of the disputed documents for sending them to their hand-writing expert for his report, his report will be filed within three months, expert will then be produced, the defendant would also be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence of hand-writing expert so produced and, thereafter, to decide the suit in accordance with law. Against this order S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 1993 was filed by the plaintiffs in this Court. On the stay application of the plaintiff-appellants, the following order was passed on March 29, 1993:- "Hon'ble Shri Rajesh Balia, J. Mr. N.S. Acharya along with Mr. B.L. Purohit for the petitioner. Heard. Issues notice of the stay application. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the trial court is not furnishing the photocopy of the disputed document which is to be sent to the expert for obtaining the opinion in terms of the order passed by the appellate court on 27.11.1992. However, the learned counsel is not in a position to suite whether he has moved such an application for obtaining the photograph of disputed document after the order passed by the appellate court on 27.11.1992. It is ordered that if any application has been made or is made by the appellant for furnishing him a certificate photograph of disputed document for the purpose of sending it to the expert for obtaining his opinion, the same may be delivered to the appellant within 3 days of making of such application and the period of three months for furnishing opinion of expert, allowed by the appellate court, to be counted from the date such photograph is delivered to the appellant. Meanwhile the cost awarded by the trial court for permitting the appellant to furnish additional evidence may be deposited in the court instead of paying to the defendant-respondent."
(3.) In compliance with the above quoted order of this Court, the plaintiffs moved an application and they were allowed to take the photostat copies of the disputed documents on May 25, 1993 (vide para No. 4 of the Revision petition). On May 26, 1993, the plaintiffs moved an application before the trial court to give them the thumb impressions obtained earlier by the court for sending the same to their hand-writing expert for his opinion.;