IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1067 of 2008 SMT. MRIDULA DEVI Versus RAM NATH SINGH & ORS ----------- 4 20/8/2008 I.A. No. 4185 of 2008. Heard counsel for the petitioner in the matter of limitation. Having taken into consideration the averment made in the limitation petition the delay caused in filing this civil revision application is condoned. I.A. no. 4185 of 2006 is thus disposed of. On merits this Court would find that the court below by the impugned order has committed no jurisdictional error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to recall the earlier order dated 10.2.2005. By the order dated 10.2.2005 prayer of the petitioner for sending the specimen signature for opinion of the handwriting expert was allowed on a condition that the petitioner would pay a cost of Rs. 100/- as also the cost of the expenditure to be incurred for obtaining opinion of the handwriting expert which was quantified at Rs. 800/-. The petitioner having not complied the order in letter and sprit, the court below by order dated 31.1.2006 had chosen to recall the said order on the ground that the petitioner had not complied the order of the court dated 10.2.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application on the next date, i.e, on 24.2.2006 praying therein to recall the order dated 2 31.1.2006 which has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 5.9.2006. Counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the entire order sheet and from perusal thereof it becomes absolutely clear that the plaintiff-petitioner either by himself or his counsel have been wholly negligent in contesting the case. It is a matter of great concern and in fact judicial notice must be taken that a suit filed in the year 2001 remained pending for consideration of prayer of the plaintiff- petitioner for injunction till December, 2002 and in the month of December, 2002 when injunction was refused, the parties were directed to proceed further in the light of the issues already framed. However, no step was taken after 13.12.2002 by the petitioner who was plaintiff and an application came to be filed after three years that he wanted some signature be sent for opinion of the handwriting expert which, as noted above, was also allowed by order dated 10.2.2005. Again the petitioner slept and took one year to comply the order dated 10.2.2005. In such a situation if the court below had drawn adverse inference against the petitioner, same cannot be said to be vitiated by any material irregularity and/or jurisdictional error. This being the position, which is also evident from the records of this case, in the normal circumstances this Court had no option but to affirm the order of the court below. 3 At this stage, counsel for the petitioner would submit that true it is that the petitioner and/or his counsel in the court below have not remained watchful but the interest of justice would require that the opinion of the handwriting expert which has a significant bearing in the result of this case be obtained and for that purpose the petitioner having found that he is responsible for causing delay in not complying the order dated 10.2.2005, is also prepared to compensate for the harassment caused to the other side, i.e, the defendant. Considering the aforementioned submission as also the interest of justice, this Court would allow this civil revision application by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the defendant, opposite party within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and upon furnishing proof of such payment, the court below will proceed to implement the order dated 10.2.2005 by sending the specimen signature to the handwriting expert as originally prayed by the petitioner and directed by the Court below in its order dated 10.2.2005. With the aforementioned observation this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar