JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on the application submitted by the respondent for vacation of interim order passed by this court on 10.03.2006 staying the proceedings in Civil Suit No.12/2004. 2. Since the submissions on the application as well as on the main petition are common, the writ petition itself has been decided finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The writ petition has been filed by the defendant petitioner challenging the order dated 31.1.2006 by which the application submitted by the defendant dated 7.11.2005 with the prayer that the document in dispute (Hundi) may be sant for examination by Hand Writitng Expert. The reason which has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner defendant for seeking the aforesaid prayer is that in the plant the plaintiff had submitted that the Hundi was in the had writing and written by one Ram Vilas PW-2 whereas in the the evidence the plaintiff as PW-1 Damodar Lal has stated in his examination-in-chief that the Hundi Exhibit-1 was in the hand writing of the defendant Dwarka Prasad. 4. The defendant had denied the fact that the Hundi was in his writing and, therefore, with a view to establish the aforesaid fact, the defendant wanted to send the same to be examined by the Hand Writing Expert. 5. The learned trial court dismissed the aforesaid application and hence, this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same submission which were made before the learned trial court while arguing this writ petition 7. I am of the view that so far as the defendant is concerned, it may be true that the defendant had no opportunity to make the prayer for sending the Hundi for examination by the Hand Writing Expert earlier since the plaintiff himself in the plaint had made an averment that the writing on the Hundi was of the PW- 2 Ram Vilas where as he has taken a different stand while entering into the witness box as PW-1 wherein he has stated that the Hundi is in the hand writing of the defendant Dwarka Prasad. None the less, so far as the prayer of the defendant is concerned, no adverse inference can be drawn if the aforesaid prayer for sending the document Exhibit-1 Hundi for examination to the Hand Writing Expert was not made earlier as this stand was taken by the defendant only because of the shift in the plea raised by the plaintiff in the evidence though no amendment has been sought in the pleadings, in that view of the matter, the defendant cannot be held responsible for the same. However, it would be a matter for consideration and appreciation for the learned trial court as to the genuineness or otherwise of the document (Exhibit-1) Hundi on the basis of the material before it produced by the parties and its appreciation. 8. Subject to the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The application submitted by the respondent for vacation of interim order stands allowed. The writ petition having been disposed of, the interim order dated 10.03.2006 stands vacated. The learned trial court is now free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.Writ Petition Disposed of as above *******