IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.146 of 2008 RAM MANOHAR SAHU & ORS Versus PRADEEP NARAIN SINGH & ORS ----------- 2. 5.9.2008 Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the plaintiffs petitioners for sending the sale deed for an expert opinion under the purported exercise of power in the court vested under Order 26 Rule 10A C.P.C. is not in any way vitiated on account of any material irregularity or jurisdictional error. Mr. Agrawal then contends that at least there are evidence on record to show in the light of the stand taken in the plaint that the signature of the father of the petitioner on the sale deed in question was forged. He would submit that at least the court below may be asked to look into those aspects of pleadings and evidence. In the opinion of this Court the court below is not supposed to ignore any evidence on record for the purposes of 2 recording a judgment and therefore, the apprehension expressed by Mr. Agrawal that those material evidence will not be considered is absolutely misconceived . That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed with the aforementioned observation. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/