JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment of the revisional court dated 31-8-1982 and the order, dated 26-9-1981 whereby the petitioner's application for examining an expert in support of the petitioner's claim has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that if the impugned orders are not quashed, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and their claim shall be negatived for want of proper evidence in tho case. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it is against the order which is in the nature of interlocutory order. He has also stressed that the revision before the revisional court was also not maintainable. He has stressed before me that the conduct of the petitioner in proceeding before the Consolidation Authorities is not such that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised at the instance of the petitioners. 4. I have weighed the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. I have also a strong feeling that the petitioners have not proceeded before the Consolidation Authorities in a reasonable manner and the petitioners have failed to lead proper evidence before the Consolidation Officer and their claim has been rightly negatived by the consolidation authorities, The conduct of the petitioners is not such that I should exercise my powers under Article 226 of the Constitution but it is noteworthy that even if the petitioners do not succeed in the present litigation there are changes that against the final order of the Consolidation Authorities either in appeal, revision or writ, the petitioners may get an opportunity to substantiate their claim it is more than often observed that no party should have a feeling that it has not got an opportunity to establish its claim. No doubt the petitioners have not proceeded in a reasonable manner, hence the present writ petition deserved dismissal but in the ends of justice it is expedient that the contesting opposite parties and the Consolidation Officer may be directed in the present case to afford a last opportunity to the petitioners to examine an expert to substantiate their claim. 5. No doubt the petitioners have not proceeded in a reasonable manner, hence the present writ petition deserved dismissal but in the ends of justice it is expedient that the contesting opposite parties and the Consolidation Officer may be directed in the present case to afford a last opportunity to the petitioners to examine an expert to substantiate their claim. 5. The only question involved in the present case appears whether the vendor had really executed a sale-deed in favour of the contesting opposite parties or he has executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioners. Without examining the disputed signatures on both the sale-deeds with the admitted signature of the vendor, the claims of the parties cannot be effectively decided hence I think it proper to direct the Consolidation Officer to give opportunities to the parties to examine an expert on the question involved and thereafter approve the claims of the parties in the light of their pleadings. 6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed Hut at the same time, the Consolidation Officer is directed to give an opportunity to the parties to examine an expert with a view to decide the claims of the parties effectively regarding the execution of the sale-deed in favour of either party. In the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own Costs.