JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 07.05.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act') has been rejected. 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and mandatory injunction against the petitioner-defendant regarding a plot situated at village Minda, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur with the averments that Patta pertaining to a plot stands in the name of his father Bheru Lal, which was transferred by him to Manju Devi on 27.05.2006 and petitioner purchased the same back from Manju Devi on 16.06.2010; the defendant-petitioner, who is Head Constable in Rajasthan Police has, by way of extending the room from the adjoining plot, trespassed on plaintiff's land and has opened ventilators on plaintiff's land and sought relief for possession and mandatory injunction. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Section 45 of the Act claiming that the construction was raised by the petitioner on foundation and plinth, which was existing for over 60 years and on account of seepage and drain water and old construction, the same became weak, therefore, while maintaining the foundation and plinth, the construction has taken place; the foundation and plinth was more than 60 years old having old stones and lime and, therefore, from the experts of the Forensic Science Laboratory ('FSL') the defendant wants to get examined the fact regarding the age of the foundation and the lime, which was necessary for final and complete adjudication of the dispute. 4. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the issue before the Courts was as to whether the construction raised by the defendant was on plaintiff's land; the plaintiff's evidence was over and the aspect sought to be raised can be proved by evidence and no investigation in this regard was necessary and, consequently, dismissed the application. 6. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application, inasmuch as, it was the specific case of the defendant that the construction was raised by the defendant on foundation and plinth, which was 60 years old and the allegation made in the plaint that petitioner had trespassed on the land in question recently was baseless and the said aspect can be fortified by way of expert evidence in case the foundation/plinth stones and the lime were examined by FSL and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner should have been accepted by the trial court. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 8. From a bare perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the allegation made in the plaint pertains to the fact that defendant has raised construction over the plot belonging to the plaintiff and the core issue in the suit pertains to whether the defendant has raised construction on his own plot or that of plaintiff; the defence raised by the petitioner regarding existence of the foundation and the plinth for over 60 years, on which, he has raised new construction, shall have to be proved by leading appropriate oral/documentary evidence by the petitioner and the application under Section 45 of the Act for the purpose of ascertaining the age of the stones/lime used for the foundation and the plinth of the construction in question, was rightly declined by the trial court, inasmuch as, the fact which needs to be proved by way of appropriate oral/documentary evidence cannot be permitted to be confused by way of leading so called expert evidence, which by itself cannot prove anything. 9. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. Petition Dismissed.