JUDGMENT 1. - Heard at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioners (defendants) have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar Headquarters Srimadhopur (Sikar) in Suit No. 29/2000 (70/2001) whereby the application filed by the petitioners under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, had been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent (plaintiff) had filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell allegedly executed on 7.10.1989, whereupon the original defendant Samandar Singh (who had died during pendency of the suit on 27.11.2009), had put his thumb impression and brother Narpat Singh his signatures. In the written-statement filed by the petitioners it was denied that they ever sold any land to the plaintiff or any agreement was exe- cuted. The deceased Samandar Singh, who was the original defendant, denied putting any thumb impression. In the same manner Narpat Singh defendant also denied putting his signatures. The suit was contested by both the brothers till 2009 when the defendant Samandar Singh died on 27.11.2009.The issues were framed on the basis of pleadings and the suit re- mained pending from 2000 to 2011. After completion of plaintiffs evi- dence the defendants also examined three witnesses including petitioner Narpat Singh. Permission to file the fourth witness was ranted by the Trial Court, however, looking to the conduct of the defendants, cost of ! 500/- was imposed. 4. The son of Samandar Singh, petitioner No. 1/ 1, who was brought on record as LR of deceased defendant No. 1 Samandar Singh, filed an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, praying that on his own he had got the thumb impression of deceased Samandar Singh compared from a private handwriting expert and that the report dated 17.10.2011 given by the handwriting expert be taken on record and the expert Renu Kumari be summoned as witness from the defendants' side. 5. The application was vehemently opposed by the respondent (plaintiff) stating therein that late Samandar Singh contested his suit from 2000 to 2009 but never prayed for getting his thumb impression compared from a handwriting expert neither did Narpat Singh (defendant 2) move any such application throughout, who has even been examined and cross-examined as D.W. 1. 5. The application was vehemently opposed by the respondent (plaintiff) stating therein that late Samandar Singh contested his suit from 2000 to 2009 but never prayed for getting his thumb impression compared from a handwriting expert neither did Narpat Singh (defendant 2) move any such application throughout, who has even been examined and cross-examined as D.W. 1. It is after completion of even the defence evidence that this application has been filed by the son of late Samandar Singh. 6. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting this a placation, has categorically observed that after completion of plaintiffs evidence the defendants' sought many opportunities and out of four, three witnesses had also been cross-examined and even on 12.10.2011 after their last witness D.W. 4 was examined, the defendants' sought some more opportunity and the opportunity was given on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. It has also been mentioned in the order that in the written-statement filed by late Samandar Singh and Narpat Singh in July, 2002 neither deceased Samandar Singh nor Narpat Singh did make such prayer or came for ward to give thumb impression for the purpose of comparison. Now, nine years after filing the written-statement, this application has been filed by the son of late Samandar Singh (defendant 1) stating the thumb impression of his father was forged. Moreover the defendant did not file any admitted thumb impression of deceased Samandar Singh. Strangely the deceased whose thumb impression was in question, was alive from 2000 to 2009 and contested the suit but never came forward for compari - son. There is also no evidence to show that the thumb impression which was compared was the admitted thumb impression of the deceased. So far as the expert's report is concerned, it is only with regard to thumb impression of Samandar Singh who has died after having contested the case for about nine years, and this application has been filed for his thumb impression, whereas defendant Narpat Singh also had denied his signatures on the agreement in his written-statement. The Trial Court, while rejecting the application in question, has given cogent reasons and has thus not committed any jurisdictional error, which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is devoid of merit, hence dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed.Petition Dismissed. *******