IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.479 of 2009 1. SHEO NARAYAN PANDEY 2. JAGAT PANDEY 3. SURYA NARAYAN PANDEY 4. BHAGAWAT NARAIN PANDEY @ BHAGAT NARAYAN PANDEY @ B.N. PANDEY @ ANAND KR. PANDEY. ALL SONS OF SHRI PASHUPATI NATH PANDEY. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-SANKATWA, P.O.-MATHIA, P.S.-LAURIYA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. ……………………DEFENDANTS-PETITONERS. Versus 1. PANNALAL SAH 2. DHUNNALAL SAH 3. SANTOSH PRASAD. ALL SONS OF LATE RAM SWAROOP PRASAD. 4. SHANTI DEVI 5. DULARI DEVI WIVES OF LATE RAM SWAROOP PRASAD. 6. REETA KUMARI 7. NILAM KUMARI BOTH DAUGHTERS OF RAM SWAROOP PRASAD. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-PARSA, P.O.-MATHIA, P.S.-LAURIYA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. 8. SUDAMA DEVI, W/O MADANLAL, R/O PATHKAULI, P.S.-BAGAHA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. 9. ASHA DEVI, W/O SHANKAR PRASAD, R/O HARIBATIKA CHOUK, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 10. USHA DEVI, W/O JAIRAM PRASAD, R/O MOTIHARI, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. 11. SOBHA DEVI, W/O MAHENDRA PRASAD, AT P.O.+P.S.+DISTRICT-GORAKHPUR (U.P.). 12. SONITA DEVI, W/O ANIL KUMAR SAW, R/O MOHALLA MAHANAGARI, P.O.+P.S.+DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. 13. SITA DEVI, W/O SAHDEO PRASAD, R/O PURANI GUDARI AT P.S.-BETTIAH, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH. ……………PLAINTIFFS-OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2 25.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This revision application has been filed by the defendants against order dated 10.12.2008 passed by Sub-Judge-I, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 96/1998 by which the application of the plaintiff for appointment of expert for comparing the signature of the father of the present plaintiff on the alleged vakalatnama filed in Title Suit No. 88 of 1994 with the signature on the vakalatnama in the present suit has been allowed. - 2 - It appears from impugned order that the original plaintiff had filed the suit for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 88 of 1994 against him alleging that some forged and fabricated vakalatnama on his behalf was filed in that suit. After his death the present plaintiffs have been substituted and they have filed the petition for comparing the signature by an expert. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that he has already got the signature compared from an expert and the report of the expert is on record. However, this does not debar the plaintiffs from getting the signature compared by an expert from their side on the order of the trial court. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the trial court has not committed any error of jurisdiction or has not committed any material irregularity. Hence, I do not find any merit in the application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)