After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the opinion that none of the reasons on which the lower Court has rejected the petitioner’s application can be sustained. The facts that Ex.B1 was stated to have been executed in favour of the petitioner’s father and not in favour of the petitioner or that neither the petitioner nor his father has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and claimed injunction or that the petitioner has not made a counter-claim regarding the possession, have no bearing on the petitioner’s request for sending the suit document for expert’s opinion. As evident from his written statement, the case of the petitioner is that his father has come into possession of the plaint schedule property in pursuance of Ex.B1 and that since then he had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property by grazing his cattle in his own right, paying land revenue to the Government, and that during partition, the said property was allotted to the petitioner’s share. Having regard to the said pleadings of the petitioner, denying him an opportunity of proving Ex.B1 would certainly cause grave prejudice to his interest. As regards the stage at which the application has been filed, the occasion for the petitioner to file the interlocutory application for sending the document for expert’s opinion would have arisen only during the course of evidence, in which, for the first time, the respondent has denied the execution of Ex.B1. Therefore, from the mere length of time for which the suit was pending, the lower Court cannot treat the application as belated.
