PANKAJ BHANDARI,J. - (1.) The petitioners have preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2016 passed by learned trial court vide which the application filed by the defendant respondents under Order 8, Rule 1 (A) (3) read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed.
(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the suit for specific performance was filed on 30.05.2005, the issues were framed on 16.05.20007. The defendant-respondents raised an objection that the agreement to sale does not bear the signature of the defendant and the same has been forged. It is contended that an application was moved by the defendant to get the hand writing expert on the signature on the agreement to sale and the admitted documents, the documents were referred to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for hand writing expert and the report was received by the Court on 05.10.2012. It is contended that as per the report, the signatures on the agreement to sale was having resemblance with the admitted signatures of the defendant.
(3.) It is contended by counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners that no objection whatsoever was raised by the defendants with regard to this report and now after a lapse of more than 3 years, the defendants have moved application under Order 8, Rule 1 (A) CPC which is highly belated. It is contended that there is no due diligence in moving the application and therefore, the court below has committed grave illegality in allowing the said application.;