RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. The petitioners/plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order dated 06/08/2016 passed by the Trial Court, by which, the Trial Court has rejected their application Exh.133 in RCS No.716/2011, and has refused to refer a purported 30 years old document to a forensic laboratory to test the age of the ink.

2. This matter was heard extensively on 25/02/2019 and again today.

3. Issue is that a document dated 30/06/1984, said to be a 'hibanama kee-yadaasht', is produced by defendant No.4 along with his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. This document is believed by defendant No.4 to be more than 30 years old. The petitioners/ plaintiffs brand the said document as being forged and fabricated. The said document was exhibited by the Trial Court by an order dated 20/07/2016 passed below Exh.124 on the basis of the presumption available u/s 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, keeping in view that it was referred to in the written statement of the said defendant and the original was produced.

4. After hearing this matter on 25/02/2019, I brought it to the notice of the plaintiffs that the onus and burden of proving the document would rest on the shoulders of defen