JUDGMENT P.R. Vyas Bhiman, Chairman. - One Kashi Ram was recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute. The O.P., Smt. Krishnawati, claimed mutation on the basis of a sale deed said to have been executed by the said Kashi Ram. It appears that the original sale deed was not produced before the trial court. Objection was taken by the vendor, Kashi Ram, on the ground that the sale deed was a fictitious document. One development in this case was that a civil suit had also been filed by the said Kashi Ram for cancellation of the sale deed. This led to a compromise between the parties, according to which the sale deed was to be treated a cancelled under certain conditions and had to be treated as valid under certain other conditions. The trial court in its order dated October 30, 1981 found in favour of the sale deed as it held that the conditions which the vendor had to fulfil had not been fulfilled. This order, however, was set aside by the S.D.O. on the ground that the proclamation had not been properly issued and the case went back to the trial court. In the restricted proceedings an application was moved by the present revisionist who had been substituted in place of Kashi Ram by then deceased. This application is dated March 31, 1984 and asks for production of Register No. 8 of the Sub-Registrar and an expert comparison of the thumb impression. This was rejected by the trial court on April 2, 1984 on the ground that granting the application will only mean dragging on the summary proceedings. This is the impugned order against which the Collector, Shahjahanpur, has made the reference. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist after narrating the facts of the case supported the reference, his argument being that the trial court did not act properly in shutting out the evidence of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the O.P. opposed the reference on the ground that the impugned order is purely inter-locutory and should not be interfered with in revision. 3. I have gone through the record of the case and considered the above arguments. It emerges that all along the vendor and now his legatee have denied the genuineness of the sale deed. In these circumstances it became incumbent on the court to satisfy itself beyond doubt on this point. 3. I have gone through the record of the case and considered the above arguments. It emerges that all along the vendor and now his legatee have denied the genuineness of the sale deed. In these circumstances it became incumbent on the court to satisfy itself beyond doubt on this point. In summary proceedings intricate legal questions could, of course, not be agitated, but whether the alleged vendor did or did not execute the particular document is not an intricate question of law but a plain question of fact. It is true that interlocutory orders are normally not interfered with in revision but this court has been acting against interlocutory orders where such orders have the effect of either closing the proceedings if decided otherwise or they have the effect of making the final order a foregone conclusion. In this case the interlocutory order in question shuts out the evidence of one party on a vital issue. In this view of the matter, I accept the reference, set aside the order of the trial courts dated April 2, 1984 and send it back to the trial court with the direction that it will get the comparison of the thumb impression made by an expert at the expense of the revisionist and thereafter proceed with the case according to law. Parties to appear there on February 27, 1985.