- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plaintiffrespondent no. 1 filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant bearing Title Suit No. 136 of 1989 for declaring registered Sale-deed No. 5310 executed by him to be void and inoperative. Other sale-deeds, which were executed by the petitioner-defendant, have also been sought to be declared void and inoperative. In that suit, when the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 led evidences that the thumb impression appearing over the Sale-deed No. 5310 never belongs to him, the petitioner-defendant filed an application praying therein to send the said sale-deed bearing L.T.I. before any hand writing expert for its verification with any admitted document bearing L.T.I. of respondent no. 1, but the prayer was rejected by the court below vide its order dated 6.9.2007 on the ground that said exercise would delay the disposal of the case.
(2.) Being aggrieved with that order, this writ application has been preferred. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do feel that for effective adjudication of the controversy, which has been raised, the court below should have allowed the prayer of the petitioner-defendant to get the disputed L.T.I. verified from the admitted L.T.I. of respondent no. 1 by an expert, as the same could have been one of the measures for resolving the dispute as to whether L.T.I., put on the registered sale deed, in question, is the L.T.I. of the plaintiff or not.In that circumstances, the trial court has wrongly rejected the prayer made in this respect on behalf of the petitioner-defendant and hence it is set aside.
(3.) Consequently, it will be open for both the parties to get the L.T.I. appearing on the registered Sale-deed No. 5310 verified by any expert, with any admitted L.T.I. appearing on a document within a period of three months. The parties will bear the costs for that themselves. Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of.;