ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2016 passed by learned trial court vide which the application filed by the defendant respondents under Order 8, Rule 1 (A) (3) read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the suit for specific performance was filed on 30.05.2005, the issues were framed on 16.05.2007. The defendant-respondents raised an objection that the agreement to sale does not bear the signature of the defendant and the same has been forged. It is contended that an application was moved by the defendant to get the hand writing expert on the signature on the agreement to sale and the admitted documents, the documents were referred to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for hand writing expert and the report was received by the Court on 05.10.2012. It is contended that as per the report, the signatures on the agreement to sale was having resemblance with the admitted signatures of the defendant. 3. It is contended by counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners that no objection whatsoever was raised by the defendants with regard to this report and now after a lapse of more than 3½ years, the defendants have moved application under Order 8, Rule 1 (A) CPC which is highly belated. It is contended that there is no due diligence in moving the application and therefore, the court below has committed grave illegality in allowing the said application. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Smt. Monika v. Surendra Bhansali & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5000/2008 decided by the Rajasthan High Court on 02.09.2016. In the case before the High Court, the documents were produced at belated stage and there was no plausible explanation for the delay. The Court held that the trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the applications for the reasons recorded. 5. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioners that the hand writing report now sought to be produced by the defendant is dated 12.11.2013, there is no explanation whatsoever for not submitting it in time and there is no objection to the earlier report therefore, the court was in error in taking on record the report of the hand writing expert. 6. Counsel for the defendant-respondents has opposed the writ petition. 6. Counsel for the defendant-respondents has opposed the writ petition. His main contention is that under Order 8, Rule 1 (A)(3) CPC only leave of the Court is required to produce a document which the defendant has not produced earlier in accordance with Order 8, Rule 1 (A) CPC. 7. Counsel for the defendant-respondents has contended that the burden of issue that the agreement to sale does not bear the signatures of the defendants and was forged, was on the defendants and the defendants have all rights to produce the report of hand writing expert even if they have not raised objection to the report earlier summoned through Court. 8. It is also contended that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory jurisdiction and the High Court cannot interfere with the order of the trial court without considering question whether said order is vitiated due to want of jurisdiction or order passed has resulted in failure of justice or trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1353 Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Ors. v. K.D. Ganapathi & Anr. with regard to this contention. 9. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 10. It is not disputed that earlier the report was sought from the hand writing expert on the application filed by the defendant. It is also not in dispute that the hand writing expert submitted his report way back and the defendant has not raised any objection to the said report. 11. Admittedly, there is a delay in moving the application because the report which the defendant sought to produce before the Court is dated 12.11.2013. However, Order 8, Rule 1 (A) CPC provides that if the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in court when the written statement is presented and where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. Sub clause 3 of Order 8, Rule 1A CPC provides that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court be received in evidence. 12. The document which the defendant now wants to produce is a document dated 12.11.2013 and was therefore, not in existence when the written statement was filed therefore, filing of the document in accordance with Order 8, Rule 1 (A) CPC was out of question. This document admittedly has come into existence after the issues have been framed, the question of due diligence therefore, will not be applicable to the document which the defendant wants to produce in Court. 13. The other contention of counsel for the petitioners that the report of the hand writing expert has already been obtained by the Court and the defendant has not raised any objection to the said report, so he cannot produce a second report cannot be accepted because the burden to prove the issue that the signatures on the agreement to sale is forged is on the defendant and the report of a hand writing expert is merely an opinion, if the report obtained by the Court is not suiting the defendant, he has all the right to produce an independent report obtained by some other hand writing expert. There being no bar in law that he cannot produce a separate report. 14. The court below has not exceeded its jurisdiction and taking on record the documents cannot be said to have resulted in failure of justice. 15. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. The stay petition also stands disposed.