The timing of applications and the consistency of parties' stances are crucial factors in determining the admissibility of evidence and the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. (Oral) - By way of filing the present revision petition, the revisionist, namely, Amarjit Kaur is challenging the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Mukerian, District Hosiharpur in a Civil Suit No.785 of 2014 titled 'Amarjit Kaur Versus Jasman Singh and ors.' vide which an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act filed by the plaintiff to seek expert opinion for comparison of signatures of Sukhjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Jasvir Kaur and Kuldip Kaur besides other executants of agreement to sell dated 31.12.2009 has been dismissed. The revisionist/plaintiff prays that the impugned order be set aside, the revision petition be accepted and application in question be allowed.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Amarjit Kaur had filed a suit against defendant Jasman Singh seeking a declaration that agreement to sell dated 31.12.2009 and compromise dated 11.11.2010 are illegal, null and void and cannot be enforced against the plaintiff, as such liable to be cancelled with respect to the land measuring 32 kanals 14 marlas detailed in the head-note of the plaint situated at village Bela Sariana, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur; in addition to seeking a decree for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking signatures of plaintiff on various blank papers forcibly with police and political pressure.

3. On notice, the defendants had put in appearance filing written statements. Issues on merits were framed. The parties were given opportunities to lead evidence, which they availed off. It may be mentioned here that Jasman Singh defendant had also filed a suit against Amarjit Kaur and others. That suit was clubbed with the suit filed by Amarjit Kaur against Jasman Singh vide order dated 10.4.2014 and suit filed by Amarjit Kaur was treated as main suit.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings plaintiff Amarjit Kaur had moved an application contending that agreement to sell dated 31.12.2009 is a forged and fabricated document not bearing signatures of plaintiff, Sukhjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Jasvir Kaur, Kuldip Kaur; the defendant has played fraud with the plaintiff etc.; they were not present at Tehsil Mukerian on 31.12.2009 inasmuch as plaintiff and Sukhdev Singh were residing at village Badhewal, Tehsil Khadur Sahin, District Amritsar; Kuldip Kaur was residing at village Phode Sapsivian, Tehsil and District Jallandhar, Jasvir Kaur was in USA at that time. Therefore, they prayed that disputed signatures of plaintiff and others on agreement to sell be got compared with their standard signatures by an expert.

5. The application was vehemently opposed on behalf of Jasman Singh and other defendants.

6. Vide the impugned order, the application was dismissed. For ready reference, the operative part of the impugned order contained in para No.4 is being reproduced as under:

4. The perusal of the file of instant case reveals that since, the inception of trial, it is categoric case the applicant/plaintiff that agreement dated 31.12.2009 is a forged and fabricated document and it has been forged by the defendant in order to grab the property of the ownership of plaintiff Amarjit Kaur. Vide order dated 10.4.2014, the instant suit titled as Amarjit Kaur Vs. Jasman Singh has been clubbed with the civil suit titled as Jasman Singh Vs. Amarjit Kaur and others. After settlement of issues on 13.5.2011, ld. Counsel for plaintiff closed his evidence on 08.4.2016 after availing multiple of opportunities. Thereafter, there has been lapse of more than six years after which, after the conclusion of evidence of appearing defendants, the instant application has been moved by the applicant Amarjit Kaur. In the suit tiled Jasman Singh Vs. Amarjit Kaur, written statement has been filed by Amarjit Kaur and others i.e. defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 in which the execution of agreement of sell dated 31.12.2009 has been admitted in para no.3 on merits in the said wr