JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"(i) The record of the Case No.86/1998 (Shankar Lal & Ors. v. Late Shri. Jeevraj & Ors.) pending before the SDO, Sojat, District Pali may kindly be called;

(ii) The impugned order dated 16.10.2017 (Annex.07) passed by the Revenue Board, Rajasthan, in Revision No.TA/8235/2008/Pali (Shankar Lal v. Bhairulal) may kindly be set aside and quashed,

(iii) The SDO, Sojat, District Pali may kindly be directed to take on record the report dated 25.08.2007 (Annex.04) while considering Case No.86/1998 (Shankar Lal v. Late Shri. Jeevraj & Ors.) and dispose off accordingly."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the defendants-respondents Nos.1 to 12 filed a suit (Annex.1) under Section 88 , 92A, 53 and 188 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 came to be filed before the Assistant Collector, Sojat being Suit No.86/1998 for declaration that the agricultural land situated in village Sojat Road, Patwar Circle Siyat Bera Raghunath Sagar, measuring 24.14 hectare be declared in their names and revenue record be rectified accordingly. It was also prayed that partition of the suit property in 2/3 be made and permanent injunction be also granted against the petitioners-defendants.

3. The petitioners-defendants filed reply to the suit stating therein that the total rakba was 140 bighas 1 biswa out of which 1/3rd share was in possession of the petitioners-defendants and their father late Shri. Jeevraj Ji. It was also stated that the respondents-plaintiffs sold their 2/3rd portion to the present petitioners-defendants and their father Late Shri. Jeevaram through registered sale-deed dated 11.07.1956 and therefore, they do not have any right over the suit property. Since 11.07.1956, the petitioners-defendants have right over the said 2/3rd portion and are also having the possession over the same and, thus, they have neither title over the suit property nor any cause of action arose to file the suit.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents-plaintiffs raised question regarding authenticity and truthfulness of the thumb impression appended on the registered sale-deed dated 11.07.1956. The thumb impression was examined by one Shri. Anil Kumar Khtetia, Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert, who gave his report dated 25.08.2007 (Annex.3). The relevant portion of the report dated 25.08.2007 reads as under:-

"I made an inspection of the original documents and took photographs with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Court, I also prepared the Computer prints on my personal computer. I also prepared on Computer C.D. Containing Photo Images.

Taking into consideration all these factors, it is my considered opinion that the Disputed Thumb impression marked as Q-1 to 4 has been affixed by the same person Shankar who has affixed his Left Specimen Thumb impressions marked as L1 and L2."

The said Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert also gave evidence before the Assistant Collector, Sojat.

5. The respondents-plaintiffs filed an application under section 151 CPC before the Assistant Collector, Sirohi praying thereby that the report (Annex.3) and the statement of the Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert may not be taken on record on the ground that the said Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert did not possess valid degree. The petitioner-defendants filed reply to the aforesaid application stating the