IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1140 of 2009 1. Binod Prasad son of Vishwanath Prasad, resident of Barh, Stationpar, P.S. Barh, District Patna. Presently residing at Mohalla Ramchandrapur, P.S. Laheri, District Nalanda. 2. Sunil Kumar son of Mishri Lal, resident of Mohalla Bhogalkuan, P.S. Sohasarai, District Nalanda. 3. Bhola Prasad son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of Mohalla Jalalpur, Town Biharsharif, P.S. Sohasarai, District Nalanda………….. ……..Applicants-Petitioners. Versus 1. Dahu Mahto alias Dahu Bhagat son of Late Leela Mahto 2. Anil Kumar son of Sri Dahu Mahto alias Dahu Bhagat, both resident of Mohalla Choti Pahari, P.S. and Post Sohasarai, District Nalanda. …………. …….Opposite parties-Opposite parties. For the petitioner : M/s V.Nath, Khatim Raza and Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocates. For opposite party no.1 : Mr. Surendra Singh, Advocate. ----------- 06/ 30.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the applicants- petitioners challenging order dated 29.06.2009 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Nalanda rejected their application dated 02.06.2009 filed in Miscellaneous Case No.69 of 2008 for a direction to compare the signature of the landlord-opposite party no.1 on kirayanama dated 22.12.1988 (Ext.1) with his admitted signature by a government expert. 3. The aforesaid matter arises out of Eviction Suit No.03 of 2007, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for eviction of the sole defendant-opposite party no.2 on the grounds of default in payment of rent and breach of the terms of 2 tenancy with respect to the suit premises which is a hotel. The said suit was filed on the basis of a registered deed of agreement for tenancy dated 12.01.1996 between the said plaintiff and the defendant and it was decreed ex-parte by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Nalanda vide his judgment and decree dated 22.04.2008. The said judgment and decree was not challenged before any higher authority and plaintiff-opposite party no.1 filed Execution Case No.05 of 2008 for execution of the aforesaid decree of eviction, which is pending before the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Nalanda. 4. It transpires that in the said execution case the petitioners, who were not parties to the eviction suit, filed Miscellaneous Case No.69 of 2008 under the provision of Order XXI Rule 97 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said miscellaneous case was contested by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 and evidence, both oral and documentary, were adduced on behalf of them and was closed. It transpires that the applicants- petitioners filed a photocopy of kirayanama dated 22.12.1988, which was said to have been executed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 in favour of one Vijay Kumar only. The said Vijay Kumar was not a party to the miscellaneous case or to the suit but his brother Bhola Prasad, although not a party to the suit, was applicant no.3 in the miscellaneous case and it was claimed that the suit premises was taken through the said kirayanama for the joint family business. The said kirayanama was marked as Ext.1 by the learned court below on 09.02.2009. 3 5. It transpires that much subsequently on 02.06.2009 the applicants filed an application in the learned court below praying that the signature of plaintiff-opposite party no.1 Dahu Mahto over the said kirayanama dated 22.12.1988 (Ext.1) be sent for comparison with his admitted signature before any government expert, which was rejected by the learned court below vide impugned order dated 29.06.2009 holding that writing on photostat copy diminished in course of time and comparison of photostat copy with the admitted signature was not possible. This order has been challenged by the applicants in the instant civil revision. 6. It is quite apparent that the learned trial court is the expert of the experts and if it has found that comparison of photostat copy with the admitted signature is not possible as it has diminished, there is no occasion for this court to interfere with the said finding of the learned court below, specially when the said order is well within the jurisdiction of that court and the miscellaneous case is at its final stage of argument and in the said kirayanama dated 22.12.1988 neither the applicants-petitioners are parties nor there is mention of any joint family business therein. 7. 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. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )