IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1019 of 2008 BINOD KUMAR YADAV & ORS Versus SMT.RAM PYARI DEVI & ORS ----------- 3. 28.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court in a suit where the parties had adduced their evidence by 13.3.2002, an application by the plaintiff-petitioners seeking leave for leading of further evidence by obtaining a report of handwriting expert at the stage of argument, which also has lingered for a period of six years, was rightly considered and rejected by the court below by the impugned order. If the petitioners were not prompt in conducting their case, the ground that has been taken in the application dated 24.1.2008 by the petitioners was itself sufficient to get their application rejected. In the said application it has been mentioned that the necessity in reference to the handwriting expert arose on account of some evidence of Ram Pyari Devi (plaintiff no.1), who during her cross- examination in paragraph 15 is said to have denied the fact with regard to her signature 2 and/or thumb impression. It is infact clear that the examination of plaintiff no.1 and her cross- examination had taken place much earlier and if at that point of time either the petitioner did not appreciate the relevance of such prayer or having made an application for the purpose, had conveniently forgotten about it, they must thank their own stars. This Court is not expected to extend a helping hand to a litigant, who sleeps over his/her right. That being so, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order and this civil revision application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/