ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure-9) passed by the Civil Judge Anupgarh in Civil suit no. 33/2017 rejecting the application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian evidence Act 1872. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff- Smt Gohdi Devi filed a suit on 10.07.2007 (Annexure-1) for declaration of sale deed dated 2.08.2006 as null and void and for possession of agricultural land before ADJ Anupgarh against original defendant no 1 and defendant No.2 on the grounds that the plaintiff possesses 25 bigha agricultural land in murabba No.37/60 at Chak-2 at District-Anupgarh which was alotted to her as a pong dam oustee. She also stated in the plaint that the said land was given for cultivation to Nakshatra Singh on contract basis in 2006 however the amount against the same was not paid and when the plaintiff asked for the payment it was replied by the defendant No-1 that the land belongs to his wife, petitioner No.2- Paramjit Kaur. 3. Thereafter the plaintiff made inquiry and got to know that a power of attorney dated 23.04.1992 was forged and fabricated in her name and on that basis the defendant No.1 - Nakshatra Singh executed a sale deed in favour of his wife on 02.08.2006. 4. During the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff died and thus the written statement was filed by the legal representatives of the defendant No.1 denying the averments in the plaint and stated that the land was given for cultivation only for the year 1991 and thereafter the original plaintiff entered into an agreement with one Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Hari Singh (mother of petitioner No.1) on 14.02.1991 for selling the said land for a consideration of amount of rupees 2,00,000 and 1,95,000 was given as an advance amount and the power of attorney was executed by Gohdi devi in favour of Nakshatra Singh the petitioner No.1 as it was not possible for her to travel to Rajasthan from Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter on the basis of the Power Of Attorney the sale deed was executed on 01.08.2006 and registered on 02.08.2006. Furthermore an FIR bearing No 423/2007 was also lodged by Gohdi Devi at PS Anupgarh in which Negative Final Report was filed by the police (Annexure-A1). 5. Thereafter on the basis of the Power Of Attorney the sale deed was executed on 01.08.2006 and registered on 02.08.2006. Furthermore an FIR bearing No 423/2007 was also lodged by Gohdi Devi at PS Anupgarh in which Negative Final Report was filed by the police (Annexure-A1). 5. Thereafter original plaintiff died and her legal representatives were taken on record as plaintiffs/respondent No.1/1-1/4. Furthermore the court framed 8 issues (Annexure-2). Thereafter an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was filed by the petitioners wherein on 17.05.2017, ADJ Anupgarh passed an order stating that the suit is not maintainable due to pecuniary jurisdiction and the plaint was directed to be returned to the plaintiffs for filing the same before the competent court and thus the matter was presented before Civil Judge Anupgarh (Junior Division) on 29.05.2017. Furthermore the respondents submitted a list of witnesses on 16.03.2019 (Annexure-3) and the evidence of their witness was recorded, however, a list of 8 witnesses was submitted by the respondents but only the affidavit (Annexure-4) of Joginder Singh i.e. respondent No. 1/1 was filed, who was cross examined by the counsel for the petitioners on 05.04.2019 and 10.04.2019 and thereafter, the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the petitioners. 6. Thereafter the petitioners submitted their list of witnesses (Annexure-5) on 30.11.2018 and 15 names as witnesses were given including Dr Iqbal Ahmed, the finger print expert. Furthermore the evidence of witnesses produced by the petitioners commenced and 9 witnesses DW1 to DW-9 were produced and cross examined (Annexure-6) by the counsel of the respondents. Moreover, an application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 was filed by the petitioners on 07.03.2024 (Annexure-7) wherein it was stated that the case of the respondents-plaintiffs is that the power of attorney dated 23.04.1992 is forged and fabricated and thus, the petitioners want the three finger print experts/ handwriting experts including Shri Iqbal Ahmed who has been mentioned as a witness in the list to examine the thumb impression of the original plaintiff, Gohdi Devi on the said power of attorney and therefore, the petitioners be allowed to submit the report of Shri Iqbal Singh with regard to the thumb mark of Smt Gohdi devi on the Power Of Attorney. 7. 7. Thereafter the respondents filed reply (Annexure-8) to the application dated 07.03.2024 and stated therein that the suit is pending since 2007 and the petitioners are delaying the proceedings and there is no purpose of calling the handwriting/ fingerprint expert. Thereafter the trial court heard the arguments and dismissed the application filed by the petitioners vide order dated 11.03.2024 (Annex.9). 8. The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2024 (Annex.9) preferred this writ petition 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order dated 11.03.2024 (Annex.9) passed by the trial court is perverse and capricious as the case of the plaintiff that the registered sale deed dated 02.08.2006 is null and void as it is executed on the basis of a forged power of attorney dated 23.04.1992, holds no force because the petitioners contended that the signature/thumb impression of Smt Gohdi Devi are genuine since she herself appended the thumb impressions as stated by DW-5, Ravindra Kumar (one of the witnesses to the Power of Attorney) while he was produced to give statements. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that respondents stated that the signatures are not that of respondent no. 1, Gohdi Devi and thus in that case the petitioners requested the trial court to call for the said expert witness which was already named in the petitioner’s list of witnesses filed in 2018 and therefore, the trial court has wrongly rejected the application filed by the petitioners. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the application while observing that the petitioners have already got one Ravindra Kumar examined as DW-5 who deposed regarding the power of attorney and thus there is no need for calling the handwriting expert/fingerprint expert to match the thumb impression of respondent no. 1, Gohdi Devi on the power of attorney with that of her thumb impression on the vakalatnama, and thus the finding of the trial court is perverse and against the principles of Natural Justice as the petitioners have the right to produce their best evidence to support their case. 11. 1, Gohdi Devi on the power of attorney with that of her thumb impression on the vakalatnama, and thus the finding of the trial court is perverse and against the principles of Natural Justice as the petitioners have the right to produce their best evidence to support their case. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the arguments of the respondents regarding the delaying of the proceedings do not stand as the suit was originally filed on 10.07.2007 and till 2017 the same remained pending before a court which had no jurisdiction and thus later it was returned to a competent court and the proceedings commenced before the competent court on 29.05.2017 and moreover an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was filed on 10.07.2018 which was rejected on 22.11.2018 and thereafter another application was filed by the respondents on 16.01.2019 which was disposed off on 08.03.2019 and certain documents were taken on record. He also submitted that the respondents also filed a S.B. Civil Writ Petition No 9523/2019 before this Hon’ble Court wherein an interim order was granted and the proceedings were stayed which remained pending till 23.09.2021 i.e. till the writ petition filed was withdrawn by the respondents and thus it clearly proves that the respondents themselves had filed various applications and the proceedings were prolonged by them and not by the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that under provisions of Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 the presence of witnesses i.e. Dr Iqbal Ahmed, Anil Gupta and Varun Gagneja is required which is necessary for the just and proper disposal of the case and the petitioners have every right to produce best possible evidence to support their case. He also submitted that as per Section 73 of the Indian evidence Act 1872 when the court has to form an opinion with regard to the identity of handwriting/finger impression, the opinion expressed by the persons specially skilled in the field are relevant facts and the petitioners were not awarded an opportunity to adduce sufficient and proper evidence. 13. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pratap Singh v Zimmi & Ors. 13. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pratap Singh v Zimmi & Ors. [S.B.C.W.P. No. 15255 of 2009, decided on 04.01.2011], wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Court that it was just and proper, in the interest of justice, to call the F.S.L report, and the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was allowed even after delay of 16 years, with imposing a cost of Rs. 5000/- on the plaintiffs to compensate the defendants. The relevant para is reproduced as under: “11. Learned trial Court while allowing the application, has observed that controversy in between the parties in the present case is whether thumb impression of Gopi on the original sale deed is forged or not. Since thumb impression of Gopi on the sale deed has been challenged, therefore, it will be just and proper, in the interest of justice, to call the report from F.S.L. by taking thumb impression of Gopi in the Court and sending the same to F.S.L. along with original sale deed. The reasons assigned by the trial Court for getting F.S.L. report appear to be justified, however, learned trial Court committed an illegality in passing the order that original sale deed may be handed over to the plaintiffs for getting report from F.S.L. The same should have been sent directly by the Court to the F.S.L. on deposit of necessary charges by the plaintiffs. Since there is delay of 16 years, therefore, reasonable amount of cost should have been awarded while allowing the application, to compensate the defendants.” 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners are deliberately delaying the court proceedings and opting the delay tactics to prolong the matter as the suit was filed in 2017 and since then the matter is pending and the petitioners are simply creating hindrances by filing frivolous applications to delay the court proceedings. He also submitted that on 01.07.2019, the evidence of respondents was closed and the evidence of the petitioners commenced and thereafter on 23.01.2024 the evidence was not produced. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioners do not have the right to call witness no. He also submitted that on 01.07.2019, the evidence of respondents was closed and the evidence of the petitioners commenced and thereafter on 23.01.2024 the evidence was not produced. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioners do not have the right to call witness no. 9 fingerprint expert as the petitioners from the time the list was given and the evidence was commenced did not request to produce him as a witness and the evidence has already been closed and thus, the petitioners cannot adduce the evidence of the fingerprint expert, as a witness at this stage. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused material available on record and judgments cited at the Bar. 17. The petitioners by the application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have attempted to prove the document, which was executed in the year 1992 (24.04.1992), the execution whereof was in the knowledge of the petitioner, however the petitioners have deliberately filed the application in question without explaining the delay in the filing the application. Thus, the unexplained delay is fatal. 18. This Court also takes into consideration the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Immortal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Lookwell Life Space Pvt. Ltd. And Others [S.B.CW.P. No. 12226 of 2021 decided on 29.07.2022] wherein it was observed that the application filed by the petitioner was not bonafide since it had been filed 10 years after the declaration/confirmation deed and thus, the said application was dismissed. The relevant para reads as under: “5. While dismissing the application, the learned trial Court has observed that the application was not bona-fide inasmuch as the suit was filed in the month of April, 2011, written statement, whereof, was filed by the respondents/defendants in the month of May, 2011 stating therein that the plaintiff has executed a joint venture agreement dated 09.06.2009 and a declaration/confirmation deed dated 17.12.2010; but, the application was filed ten years thereafter. If the petitioner disputes the genuineness of the subject documents, it is for the defendants to establish the plea taken by them in their written statement as to execution of these documents by the petitioner by leading cogent evidence. If the petitioner disputes the genuineness of the subject documents, it is for the defendants to establish the plea taken by them in their written statement as to execution of these documents by the petitioner by leading cogent evidence. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court did not err in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Act of 1872.” 19. Moreover, this Court observes that the learned Trial Court has rightly took note of the fact that one of the petitioners’ witnesses, DW-5, Ravindra Kumar has categorically stated in his statement that the respondent no. 1 Gohdi Devi had executed power of attotney in favour of Nakshatra Singh, in his presence and in these circumstances, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners/defendants, if expert opinion is not brought on record. 20. This Court finds that by way of filing the application at such a belated stage the petitioners want examination of the expert to prove thumb impression of Smt. Gohdi Devi (plaintiff No.1) on the power of attorney dated 23.04.1992. Furthermore, the petitioners’ own witness, namely, DW-5, Ravindra Kumar in his statements has deposed that the thumb impression on the power of attorney was of respondent no. 1, Gohdi Devi and the same was made in his presence. Thus, despite availability of evidence of DW.5, Ravindra Kumar, to that effect, the petitioners have not been able to make out reasonable ground for requirement of expert opinion and, therefore, their application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has rightly been rejected. 21. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, no interference is made out in the judgment dated 11.04.2024 (Annex.9) passed by the Civil Judge, Anupgarh. The writ petition lacks merits and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.