IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.204 of 2007 ---- Harjeet Singh son of Bangali Singh, resident of village Mai, Police Station-Rahui, P.O. Mai Farida, District-Nalanda, at present resident of Harmandir Gali, Police Station Chowk Patnacity, District-Patna. Performa defendant- Petitioner. Versus 1. Sri Ram Nandan Prasad Chaudhary @ Ram Nandan Prasad, son of Late Harihar Chaudhary, resident of Village Hussainpur, P.s. Rahui, District-Nalanda. -- Plaintiff-Opposite Party 1st Set. 2. Sri Awadesh Chaudhary @ Awadesh Pd.Chauddhary, son of Late Mitrajit Chaudhary, resident of village- P.O. Hussainpur, P.S. Rahui, District-Nalanda. -- Defendant- Opposite Party 2nd Set. 3. Bangali Singh son of Late Punit Singh. 4. Smt. Shyama Devi, wife of Bangali Singh 5. Ranjit Singh son of Bangali Singh, brother of Late Triloki Singh. All three are residents of Village Mai, P.S. Rahui, P.O.Mai Farida, District-Nalanda. -- Defnedant-Opposite 3rd Set. ---- For the petitioner : Mr. Hans Raj, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----- 04. 03.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by proforma defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 20.09.2006 by which the learned Munsif, Biharsharif (Nalanda) allowed defendant no.1 to send the admitted and disputed signature of the vendor before a private expert in Title Suit No.75 of 1996. 3. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 17.6.1996 passed by the learned Sub-Registrar, Biharsharif, Nalanda as well as his order dated 02.08.1996 by which the suit land was compulsorily registered in favour of defendant no.1, although plaintiff never entered into an agreement for sale with defendant no.1. - 2 - 4. During the pendency of the suit, defendant no.1 filed a petition in the court below for allowing him to send the admitted and disputed signature of the vendor before the private expert for comparison and for submitting the report. The objection of the petitioner who was merely a proforma defendant in the suit is that the signature had already been examined by a government expert who had submitted his report which was received in the court on 07.11.2002 and hence there was no necessity for another report. The learned court below allowed the application of defendant no.1 and rejected the petition of the proforma defendant after finding that the report of the government expert was not clear and hence there was necessity of calling for another report as prayed by defendant no.1. 5. 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 error of jurisdiction therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. However, at the time of final arguments, the learned court below will consider the reliability of one or the other report in accordance with law. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)