JUDGMENT Heard counsel. This revision petition has been preferred by the defendant against the order dated 20.4.98 passed by Shri B.P. Sharma, VII Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, whereby an application of the petitioner for obtaining the expert opinion has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner for eviction on various grounds contained in section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and one of them was Sec. 12(1)(a) of the said Act. The case of the defendant was that no receipt was ever given, though rent has been paid regularly. The plaintiff submitted four counter foils, which according to the petitioner were forged. The case was fixed for hearing of the matter on the application filed under section 13(2) of the Act and at that stage the petitioner moved an application for obtaining expert opinion which has been rejected. The learned counsel further contends that the matter under section 13(2) of the Act has finally been decided and the petitioner pressed the application for obtaining the expert opinion with respect to the merits of the case as the counter foil were forged and they will affect the merit. The learned Court below in rejecting the application committed grave error which has prejudiced the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the application for expert opinion was rejected when the case was fixed for hearing on section 13(2) of the Act and the learned trial Court also observed that for the disposal of the matter under section 13(2) of the Act, the expert opinion was not necessary. The learned counsel refers to the impugned order. He also urged that as far as the merit is concerned, the petitioner no where mentioned in the list which is submitted under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC that he had to examine expert as well. Lastly, the learned counsel argued that the application was moved in order to delay the disposal of the case and in case the defendant is permitted to obtain the expert opinion he may be directed to obtain it within the specified time given by the District Judge. I have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. I have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. It cannot be disputed that at the stage of the disposal of the matter covered under section 13(2) of the Act the detailed evidence need not be taken and at that stage it was not necessary to permit the petitioner to obtain the expert opinion. The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded this position and argued that the expert opinion was sought for disposal of the case on merits, as the counter foil were forged. After giving my anxious considerations to the matter, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice demanded that if the defendant claims to obtain expert opinion, it was the duty of the Court to have permitted the defendant to obtain the expert opinion but as no such mention was made in the list filed under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC the defendant should have been saddled with cost. If the defendant is not permitted to obtain expert opinion, it will certainly cause injustice to him. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which .as interference in the revision is essential. The revision is accordingly allowed. The petitioner shall obtain the expert opinion within the period of one month from today and file the report before the trial Court and see that the case is not prolonged and travels beyond the specified time. The defendant shall also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to the plaintiff as costs. In case the expert report is filed by the defendant, the plaintiff shall also be given an opportunity of rebuttal. The trial Court shall proceed to decide the case expeditiously. The costs of this revision shall be borne out by the parties themselves.