“PW8 Dr.Inderjit Singh has tendered his affidavit and report into evidence vide separate statement. Copies supplied to other side. For cross-examination to come upon 25.3.2009.” The said witness of the plaintiff/respondent, did not present himself for the purpose of cross examination. Moreover, the said witness of the plaintiff has opined against the interest of the plaintiff, therefore, another application was filed by the plaintiff for the purpose of inspection of the file and taking photographs of hand writing and finger print expert to compare the signatures of Hari Ram (defendant No.3) although the signatures of said Hari Ram had already been taken from the admitted documents and have been compared by Dr.Inderjeet Sharma, who has submitted his report dated 15.2.2009 to the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners, has thus, argued that the learned Court below has erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the plaintiff to prepare another report through the process of hand writing and finger print expert contrary to the report, which has already been brought on record by the plaintiff himself. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 2.12.2009 and in the meantime, operation of the impugned order was ordered to be stayed and respondents No.1 and 2 had been served but no one had put in appearance on their behalf, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte and the case was fixed for arguments for today. No one on behalf of the respondents has turned up for the purpose of contesting the revision petition.
