A-12 0 ?--/ %22.7.2011 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Anand and Mr. Vkram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent. +CM (M) No. 522/2011 and CM No. 8669/2011 (stay) * The order impugned before this court is the order dated 11.01.2011 vide which the permission to lead additional evidence by producing a handwriting expert had been denied. Admitted facts are after that the filing of a suit for possession, the suit had been decreed; before the Appellate Court an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been filed; that application had been allowed vide order dated 24.04.2008; the court had noted the contention of the appellant therein that the cheuqe Ex. DW1/P1 was forged and fabricated; permission had been granted to the applicant to lead additional evidence in terms of his application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code and for said purpose, the matter had been remanded back to Ap the Trial Judge. Vide the impugned order, the Court has noted that since the defendant had admitted the cheque, the question of his producing a handwriting expert does not arise; he had rejected the contention of the defendant to lead additional evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that when there was an order of a superior court specifically granting permission to the defendant to lead his additional evidence, the impugned order suffers Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified 5) from a patent illegality, in not permitting him to do so. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is borne out from the record. The order of the Additional District Judge dated 28.04.2008 had specifically granted permission to the defendant to lead additional evidence qua the fabrication and forgery of the alleged cheuqe Ex. DWI/P1; in these circumstances, the impugned order rejecting the contention of the defendant to lead additional evidence by producing a handwriting expert suffers from a patent illegality. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to lead his • additional evidence in terms of the order dated 28.04.2008. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court reported in 2008 (102) DRJ 147 to substantiate his submission that where there is an admission by a party about the cheque, no CFSL opinion can be obtained. This judgment would not apply to the factual scenario of this case. The Appellate Court had specifically noted the contention of the defendant that the alleged cheque Ex. DW1/P1 was forged and fabricated. Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.01.2011 is set aside. INDERMEET KAUR, J. JULY 22, 2011 rb