JUDGMENT :

Pradipta Ray, J. - The contesting Defendant Nos. 9 to 11, who are opp. parties 2 to 11 in this revision have entered caveat and accordingly this case is disposed of at the stage of admission after a contested hearing.

2. In this revision Plaintiff-petitioners have challenged order No. 112 dated July 12,1996 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the Petitioners' application u/s 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending endorsement of cancellation and signature (Ext.E/1) appearing on the document (Ext.E) to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and opinion.

3. It appears that on July 5, 1996 the disputed power of attorney (Ext.E) was filed in the Trial Court. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners put an endorsement on the list of documents furnished to him "received with objection". On July 8, 1996 the Plaintiff-petitioners filed an application alleging, inter alia, that the endorsement of cancellation on the disputed power of attorney stated to have been made by late Soumen Benerji is forged and the signature is not that of said Soumen Benerji. On the same date, i.e. July 8,1996 Smt. Rekha Mukherji, Defendant No. 6 deposed as D.W.4. The disputed power of attorney and the en