IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1886 of 2009 ---- Rajvansh Sah son of Jagarnath Sah, Resident of Village Basantpur, Police Station- Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur (Bhabua). -- Defendant-petitioner. Versus Sunil Kumar Agrawal son of Kapoor Chand Agrawal Resident of Village + Police Station- Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur (Bhabua). -- Plaintiff-opposite party. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh with Mr. Abhishek, Advocates For opposite party no.1 : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey with Mr. Satyendra Pandey, Advocates. ---- 04. 16.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. This civil revision is being finally heard at this stage at the instance of the parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order 16.10.2009 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Kaimur(Bhabua) rejected his application for examination of his expert as witness in support the expert report in Title Suit No.22 of 2000. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- opposite party for specific performance of contract with regard to agreement for sale dated 08.09.1997 with respect to the suit properties said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of opposite party. 4. It also transpires that much earlier Title Suit No.166 of 1998 had been filed by the petitioner for declaration that the - 2 - aforesaid agreement for sale was void containing forged signature of the petitioner. However, both the suits were made analogous in the year 2004 and were heard together, whereafter the evidence of both the parties are completed and closed and both the suits are pending for final argument. 5. It transpires that while the evidence of the opposite party was going on a report of a private expert dated 30.07.2005 with respect to the signature on the deed of agreement was filed by the petitioner in the court below. Thereafter the evidence of the opposite party was concluded and closed and the evidence of the petitioner was also closed on 17.06.2008. However, the petitioner filed an application for recall of the said order dated 17.06.2008 and the learned court below taking a lenient view recalled the said order and allowed him vide order dated 18.07.2008 to examine all the witnesses that he wanted to examine within three dates. 6. It transpires that when the defendant did not avail the said opportunity within the time granted by the learned court below, he applied before the learned court below which again took a sympathetic view and vide order dated 13.06.2009 gave a last opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence, but when the said opportunity was not availed by the petitioner, his subsequent application was rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 09.07.2009. 7. It transpires that it was thereafter that the petitioner filed an application dated 17.08.2009 for allowing the expert to - 3 - depose on his behalf for proving his earlier report dated 30.07.2005 which had been filed much earlier. This application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 16.10.2009 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 8. It is quite apparent that an expert has already been examined in the case with respect to the genuineness of the signature on the agreement in question dated 08.09.1997 and he had been discharged as far back as on 04.02.2006, but in spite of that and in spite of the report of the other private expert, the defendant did not produce the said expert for being examined in support of the said report. 9. Furthermore from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that several opportunities were given by the learned court below, but the defendant did not avail any such opportunity and went on filing repeated applications in the trial court without taking any concrete step in that regard which clearly shows that the intention of the petitioner is merely to delay the disposal of the suit on one pretext or the other. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)