1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1724/2008. Ghewar Chand. VERSUS Shri Pukhraj and Others. 16.02.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.J.P.Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr.J.P.Goyal, for the respondents. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.01.2008 (Annexure-10) by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the course of trial after the evidence of the parties, the non-petitioner/defendant filed an application for being permitted to lead evidence of a Hand Writing Expert by sending the document, agreement dated 14.08.1991 for comparison with the admitted signatures of the executant Shri Janwari Lal. The matter came before this court and the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure-5) in appeal filed by the present petitioner clarified that it would be open for the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal after 2 the Hand Writing Expert is examined by the defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner in rebuttal wanted to produce before the learned trial court two documents, copies of which have been filed along with the writ petition as Annexure-7, the alleged batwaranama and Annexure-8, the affidavit of Smt.Sajjan Kanwar widow of Shri Janwari Lal. These documents were sought to be produced by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 14.08.1991 in rebuttal, when the evidence of the Hand Writing Expert was led, along with an application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.358/2007 dated 28.03.2007. I am of the view that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the order passed by this court so far as the present application is concerned. The documents which the petitioner seek to produce before the learned trial court by way of application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. do not fall within the purview of the evidence in rebuttal. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the order dated 28.03.2007 came to be passed 3 by this court in the light of the defendants being permitted to examine the Hand Writing Expert with reference to the execution of the alleged document dated 14.08.1991 which is the subject matter of the suit and as to whether the same was executed by the deceased Janwari Lal or not, the present set of documents which are sought to be produced do not in any manner threw light on the question at issue as to whether the document dated 14.08.1991 was executed by the deceased Janwari Lal in favour of the present plaintiff. Whatever attending circumstances are concerned in relation to which the two documents are sought to be produced do not fall within the scope of evidence in rebuttal as they relate to the issue whether the property in dispute belonged to Janwari Lal. This is a matter which is beyond the scope of the issue whether the agreement in dispute bears the signatures of Janwari Lal. In the facts and circumstances, no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed and the interim order stands vacated. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.