IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2381 of 2010 1. MOST.RAM SHAKHI DEVI W/O LATE JUGAL KISHORE SAH 2. SAMSHER SAH S/O LATE JUGAL KISHORE SAH BOTH R/O VILL. NEWATPUR,P.S.DESARI, P.O. SAHDEOI BUZURG, DISTT-VAISHALI………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. RAM ROOP RAI S/O SRI HARICHARN RAI, R/O VILL DASARIPUR,P.S.MAHNAR, P.O.MAHNAR,DISTT-VAISHALI 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR,THROUGH THE COLLECTOR VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR………………..RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : M/s Prakash Srivastava and Anuradha Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, AC to GA-9 ----------- 02/ 18.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This writ petition is directed against order dated 18.05.2009 by which Civil Judge-I (Senior Division), Vaishali rejected petitioners’ interlocutory application dated 27.03.2008 filed in Title Suit No.80 of 2003 in which petitioners had made a prayer to call for a report from handwriting and finger print expert in order to ensure the genuineness of the signature made by the plaintiff-respondent on receipt dated 10.01.2001 The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-respondent no.1 for specific performance of agreement for sale, whereafter defendants-petitioners appeared, filed their pleadings, issues were framed and evidence were led in which the said receipt was produced as Ext.3. After closure of the evidence of both the parties including the defendants-petitioners arguments started on 21.08.2007 and the parties were heard at length, but in the - 2 - midst of arguments defendants-petitioners filed the aforesaid petition for calling for a report from handwriting and finger print expert with respect to Ext.3. If the defendants–petitioners wanted to get the said exhibit examined, they should have filed such a petition much earlier when the evidence was going on. Much after the closure of evidence when the arguments of the parties were heard at length raising such prayers clearly means that the defendants-petitioners were using dilatory tactics merely with a view to delay the disposal of the suit. In the said circumstances, the court below was quite justified in rejecting the said application. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)