Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

1. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Iqbal Ahmad alongwith Sri Aditya Vardhan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

"Kindly set aside the first impugned order dated 24.3.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moradabad in Original Suit No. 826 of 2017 (Jag Mohan Malhotra vs. Atul Sharma and others) (Annexure No. 1 to this petition) as well as the second impugned order dated 30.3.2018 passed by the District Judge, Moradabad in Revision No. Nil of 2018 (Jag Mohan Malhotra vs. Atul Sharma and others) (Annexure No. 2 to this petition);

ii) kindly, reject the application (paper no. 120-C moved by the respondent no. 3 in toto;

iii) issue any other suitable direction or pass an order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstance of the case; and

iv) Award costs of the petition to the petitioner."

3. By the impugned order dated 24.3.2018 the court below has allowed the application filed by the Investigating Officer paper no. 129-Ga to the effect that in presence of all the counsels the sealed cover containing memorandum of agreement may be opened and a copy of the same be provided to the Investigating Officer/handwriting expert. Thereafter, the original document be put back in sealed cover. The revision against the same was dismissed by the revisional court on the ground that the order is purely interlocutory in nature and therefore, the revision is not maintainable. In the present petition, both the orders are under challenge.

4. Facts in brief of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner instituted Original Suit No. 826 of 2017 against the defendant-respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moradabad claiming a decree of specific performance for an agreement for sale dated 17.11.1987, memorandum whereof was written on 19.7.1988, alongwith a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant-respondent nos. 4 to 6 from alienating the property, mortgaging the same and from causing any interference in the plaintiff's actual and physical possession over the property in dispute. The plaint case is based upon an agreement to sale dated 17.11.1987, which was executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, namely, Smt. Rajeshwari Sharma and Smt. Sudha Sharma in respect of their 1/20-1/20 shares qua building described in the schedule-Ka. It is further alleged in the plaint that in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, the actual and physical possession of the aforesaid property had been handed over to the plaintiff's father and insofar as the execution of the sale deed is concerned, it had been agreed that after partition of the respective shares amongst the co-sharers, the sale deed would be executed. A copy of the alleged agreement/memorandum of agreement dated 19.7.1988 was part to the record in original before the trial court. The suit was instituted on 14.11.2017 and one Jai Kumar Mishra (who is not a party to the suit), maternal uncle of the defendant-respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 lodged a first information report against the plaintiff-petitioner, his three sons and two brothers, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 383 of 2017, under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

5. By means of a short counter affidavit certain documents have been placed on record to indicate that the first information report was lodged online to the higher police authorities Inspector General of Police/Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Division, Moradabad on 8.12.2017 with the allegation that the first information report filed on 27.11.2017 was not registered by the police station Kotwali, Moradabad. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Division, Moradabad vide its o