Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri A.N. Bhargava, assisted by Sri Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, and, Sri D.K. Srivastava, Sri H.K. Singh and Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsels for the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1, 3, 4 and 5.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 13.8.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2015 whereby the Application being Paper No. 40-C filed by the defendants-petitioners for additional evidence for getting handwriting expert report on the alleged partition deed dated 31.12.1969, was rejected.

Facts of the Case :

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that contesting respondent/plaintiff Sri Chandrabhan filed O.S. No. 300 of 1999 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadohi on 18.5.1999 to seek relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-petitioners with respect to Khasra Plot No. 446 measuring 6 biswas 17 dhoor situate in village Khamhriya. In paragraph-2 of the plaint he stated that he is the Sankramniya Bhoomidhar of the aforesaid Khasra Plot No. 446. A written statement dated 19.8.1999 was filed by the defendants-petitioners. In paragraph-9 of the written statement, the defendants-petitioners stated that during consolidation, Khasra Plot No. 446 was made in the name of father of the contesting respondent/plaintiff and Khasra Plot No. 443 was made in the name of predecessors of the defendants-petitioners and since they were belonging to one and the same family and as such, they entered into an agreement dated 31.12.1969 as per which both the plots were divided in four parts and a portion was given to the father of the contesting respondent/plaintiff. Initially six issues were framed in the aforesaid suit on 12.9.2000. Subsequently, the defendants-petitioners moved an Application 140-C for framing one more issue. On the aforesaid Application, the issue No. 7 was framed. Subsequently, when the suit was at the argument stage, the defendants-petitioners filed another Application 163-C to amend the issue No. 7 by mentioning the date of alleged compromise agreement as 31.12.1969 instead of 1.12.1969. The said Application was also allowed and the issue No. 7 was, accordingly, amended as under:

^^7- D;k fookfnr vkjkth Hkwfe la[;k 443 o Hkwfe la[;k 446 nksuksa uEcjku ds fuLor njfE;ku iwoZt QjhdSu lqygukek bdjkjukek fnukad 31-12-1969 rgjhj gqvk gS vkSj eqrkfot foHkktu caVokjk bdjkjukek nksuksa uEcjku ij QjhdSu vius vius fgLls ij dkfct n[khy gS\ bl izdkj izfroknh@vihykFkhZ ds izkFkZuki= ds vk/kkj ij okn fcUnq la[;k&7 fojfpr fd;k x;kA**

4. The contesting respondent/plaintiff took the stand that the aforesaid alleged compromise agreement dated 31.12.1969 is a forged and fabricated piece of paper. After the defendants-petitioners and the contesting respondent/plaintiff stated before the Trial Court that now they do not want to lead any other evidence, the arguments were heard and the aforesaid O.S. No. 300 of 1999 was decreed. The issue No. 7 was decided in favour of the contesting respondent/plaintiff and against the defendants-petitioners. It was brought to the notice of the Trial Court that two compromise agreements being Paper No. 31-C and 32-C were filed by the defendants-petitioners but they could not explain it. The name of the father of the contesting respondent/plaintiff is recorded in the Revenue Records since consolidation in the village. The Khasra No. 443 which the defendants-petitioners alleged to have been given to the father of the contesting respondent/plaintiff under the compromise agreement, was sold by them by sale deeds dated 8.8.1977 and 9.7.1966. The defendants’ witness Sri Hub Lal stated that in his presence, only one agreement was entered and there was no naksha najri. Considering the facts and evidences on record, the Trial Court found the alleged compromise agreement dated 31.1