VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA,J. - (1.) The matter comes up in an interim application number 3116 of 2017, with a prayer for vacation of the ex-parte interim order dated 22nd September, 2013. However, in view of the fact that the controversy is within a narrow compass; the matter was taken up for final adjudication, at this stage, with the consent of the counsel for the parties.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) The essential material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the plaintiff/respondents instituted the suit proceedings for declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 24th July, 2006, while praying for possession and damages along with permanent injunction. The petitioner/defendants (for short "petitioners"), submitted their written statement on 10th August, 2009, resisting the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents with the statement that the sale deed dated 9th December, 1959, is a forged document on the basis of which suit proceedings have been instituted while seeking a declaration and cancellation of the sale deed dated 24th July, 2006. It is not in disputed that an application under Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC"), was instituted by the petitioners on 9th March, 2016, with a prayer to take on record certain documents to be received in evidence. The application was resisted by the plaintiff/respondents, which has been declined vide impugned order dated 4th August, 2016, of which the petitioners are aggrieved of.;